rex 

CCC 



CjCi^CC 






CCCC 



CCCCC 
OCCCC 

cclccc 

' ccr<?c 



^ " c&<c: : <3kc <c 5 
.*^C <SS* ccc<; ^ 

CfcC OCTo: ccc_ 

cScr CC« <Xc«C 

1 C?cC «C<-<" "-^R. «<S— 

<sciccs£iiiE exec. <k 
<^^C5ESC aacfi 

C-C CC< $1 <r<C jC 

cic c^cm.<^-. ^4 
: *£:■ <rcc <l <^e c: 

veer cccicc c c , ■■ 
r VcC'"cic<r<2c<c ^« 
\c;t : "^'ccic c: <£<s 

"Vcc <2 <C<€3S£ etc <<< 
^cc~ClCV<cSccc c r 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 

UNITED STATES OP AMERICA.! 



<C 

cc c 

*r < 
<?? c 

< c 

<PC 

cc 

< c 



t(/C c<. c <^c 

^vCC CO C < 

rrccd cccc cc 
<xc.ee: cue cc 

cc<;r<: c<:cc cc 

xc c :c cc< c <c c 

'Cere; c:<sc<:. cc e 
V ,<X ^ccC C? c 

cum xcc<l <</<-: 

ax ^ccCC CC 
>£$<% ^ccc c c 
^ MXC C C 

l cc ccccc: c 

( ^ CC C ! 
, c c c <c_ c c 

\ c ccccoc 
rat nrc 6cccct 

tel x <*c<lcc"< 

% XCCCXCC 

Tr« .rc"ClCL<:C< C 

** -"'X CCCC c 
r& cc ceo S Cc c 
^ x cc c cc c 

5j c ci:c:c(cc 

ICccC 

iZ cicc 

rcsc 

CCCC 
_XCC 

:cc<c ■■ 
<KC 

^c 

t~«C§ C 



<M< 



Z~ CC 

~<&c 
c c 

CC 

CC 
x< 

c< 
cocsc 



CK 

CXO:C 

cc^ 

CC <1 



<^ 


tii 


<c 


cx< 


S ( - 


PE 


^ 


CCi 


Ca 


rC 


^ 


,^ 


c 


cc 


C 1 


"C 


<^ 


:'C 


c 


( 



■ OCJ 
CKTiC 



r <«: 

CcCu. 



«GC 



<l<c 



•■« est 






CSC 

cic 

> CSC 
eve 

cc 



ccc 

(C 



<c 
cc 

CC 

CC 

<TC 
C<S< 
<rc: 
cc 

ckc: 
cc 
cc 
cc 



«sccc 



c:C- C^^^ 
COcGC 



5^c 

C<U--0 
OtCc 

cc; 
d c 

C C 

c^c 



cc 
cc 
cc 

c c 

c ?c 
cc 

V c c 

Z cc 



^ <r c^ 



>V ,CCI_ ex: C 

5< CC t<XC< 

<^.OC*ccc< 

S<"C^> -ci.ee 



_«CC<' C 
^,-J<<5 ' C 

CCC ccc c c 
<?E5C CO? C 

CO Cc 

Cc C c.c c 



=.. <8>C* C • 

... ccc 

^«c cccc 
*> «c cere 

>.«crcc 

C^-CC'CCo 



-V--- CCOo. cc 



— c<cl; 

Cc Cc 



Els 

^C<CX 

*G3fcC 



^•c<Si:c«c 

rf - <ICc«C: 
< <CCC< " 



V <C<C , 

& ccc: 

sir • -^OCT" 

c cccr 



*m c 

,,-o c c,.c 
C ex C e«c 



CCc* 



cccc 

.Ccc-'-' 

3K.< c 
CC 
CcC- 



.clcc 



-~ c cc_ 

c<c c 

-. x< C < 
c iss c < 

i>v c < 
S c c 

C Co 

ccc 
ccc: 

< ..■ i < " 



«c<- « 

ccc c.^c; 

etc- ■( v«rr : 



C c <c 

c c c 

^-S3-<< < 

<^ c c r c < 

p: C A r 

&-- C;K. c 

K ^c c 

-' CTC' c 

- <^C C 

- , Vcc. 

- - C »-C r" 



_CC 
L c c 

c cc *c m 

<S®CjC^ 



^ co. 

: I CC£<s 

3E CCtc 

C CCc<i 

K CCt.«k 

T 5^" 4 Cj« r • 

C CX *■*' C r ■' €""7:^-^ 

; cccc,, 
£« -'C<< 

^ <C-xci(.<r c c >% ^ # 

t «T% % v< -«i.'* 

oc§ mm 



C^ ^ <- x<c 

S^c c «cz o 



^.CCccC 

C*- Cc^cid 

5 Cccc 

£ C(C 

^S Cc .*- 



C ^<c c \^> 

^ CCC * Cf-r 

»C5 cXmcC CC 

c; -c ^:c_ c<c 

5 r 'C ; cT<CT "cfc 

c^cc c<c;^ c< ; 

1 Cc etc 

< ,c CCC 
< CCC 

1 coc 

ccc:-. 

<C<c 



cc 

cc 

- ^C. f C' 

C c 

. <r< 

_<c< 
j CC 



c<r 



cc 
cc 
<c< 

<c 
OS 

<CI 

«c 

«> 

CC ' 



_ cc 

_. <.;c 

: cc 
cc 

cc 

CC 
cc 

CoC 
CC 

cc 
cc 

CK 



THE 



HISTORY AND MYSTERY 



OP 



METHOD||T EPISCOPACY, 



A GLANCE AT 



THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE CXUTRCB* 



AS WE RECEIVED THEM FROM OUR FATHERS. 



BY ALEXANDER M'CAINE. 

ELDER IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 



We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth St. 'Paul. 

He who has no right to the thing he possesses, cannot prescribe or plead any length of time, to 
make his possession lawful Dr. Barrow. 



\ cy. 



BALTIMORE : 

PRINTED BY RICHARD J. MATCHETT, 



1827. 






A. 



DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, TO WIT.— 

[L S.] BE IT REMEMBERED* that on this thirtieth day of March, in tne fifty-fim 
year of the Independence of the United States of America, ALEXANDER M'C AINE of the 
said District, hath deposited in this office, the title of a Book, the right whereof he claims a: 
Author, in the words following, to wit:— 

"The History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy; or, a Glance at "the Institutions of 
the Church, as we received them from our fathers." By Alexander M'Caine, Elder in tflt 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 

We can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth.— St. Paul. 

He who has no right to the thing he possesses, cannot prescribe or plead any length of time 
to make his possession lawful.— Dr. Barrow" 

In conformity with the act of Congress, of the United States, entitled " An Act for tha 
encouragement of learning, b- securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Bocks, to the authors 
and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned;" and also to the Act, en- 
titled ■' An Act supplementary to the Act, entitled An Act, for the encouragement of learning,. 
by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to the authors and proprietors of such co~ 
pies, during the times therein mentioned, and extending the benefits thereof, to the arts of de~ 
signing, engraving, and etching historical and other prints. PHILIP MOORE, 

Clerk of the District of Maryland.. 



It may be thought extraordinary, that the writer of the fol» 
lowing essay, should call in question, the validity of the claims 
of the bishops and travelling preachers of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, after having himself been a preacher in connexion 
with them, for upwards of thirty years. 

Previous to the general conference of 1 824, his attention had 
been invited to a consideration of the complaints and demands, 
of the laity and local ministers; and being fully convinced of the 
justice of those demands, he could not avoid looking with deep 
solicitude to the fate of the many memorials, which were about 
to be sent up to the general conference. After the conference 
had risen, a circular appeared, in which, they declare, they 
" know no such rights, they comprehend no such privileges" as 
were asserted in the memorials, praying for Representation. 
To those who urged the necessity of introducing the represen- 
tative principle into the legislative department of the church, no 
room was left to hope, that any abatement would be made, at a 
future day, in the pretensions of the travelling preachers; for 
the conference declared, in terms sufficiently intelligible, their 
purpose to have and to hold forever, all power, legislative, 
judicial and executive, as a legacy which they had inherited 
from their " fathers." 

Such declarations, coming from the general conference, were 
sufficient to rouse every man who knows how to respect his 
rights, whether civil or religious. The writer of this essay 
was alarmed at such declarations, because he considered them 
to be indications of priestly domination; and moreover, he con- 
sidered them offensive, because they were addressed to citizens 
of these United States. New thoughts were waked up, and 
forebodings felt, which he had never before experienced. He 
determined, therefore, to examine the grounds of such unheard 
of claims. He was resolved, if possible, to ascertain, the means 
by which travelling preachers had arrived at these pretensions, 
and find the authority which Mr. Wesley had given to justify 
them in saying, he " recommended the episcopal mode of 
church government." When, lo! the first discovery he made ? 
was, that whilst Mr. W r esley the testator, was yet living, the title 



IV. PREFACE. 

of bishop was assumed, and the episcopal mode of government 
adopted without his recommendation; and more, that his most 
solemn remonstrance and entreaty did not avail in causing them 
to relinquish the one, or change the other. Still pursuing the 
investigation, he found, that a more extended research served 
only to increase his conviction, that claims had been set up, for 
which there was no warrant; and authority was said to have 
been given, which, he believes, can no where be found. 

The result of his investigation was read before the Union So- 
ciety of reformers in Baltimore; and the ^writer was requested 
to print it for the information of his brethren. But before he 
would consent to its publication, he thought it would be fair and 
honourable to apprize the bishops of his purpose, and signify 
to them the probable effect it would have, on the office which 
they fill. He accordingly addressed to each of them the let- 
ter No. I. in the appendix; but from neither of them, has he re- 
ceived one word in reply. Failing to obtain information from 
this quarter, he addressed the letter No. II. in the appendix to 
each of six of the oldest preachers in the connexion, men who 
were in the general conference of 1784. And from the answers 
he has received from them, collated with other documents, he 
is fully established in the opinion that there never was a docu- 
ment, letter or paper, received from Mr. Wesley, in whioh he 
recommended the episcopal mode of church government, to the 
American Methodists. 

In presenting this view of the origin of our episcopacy to his 
readers, he wishes it to be distinctly understood, that the doc- 
trines of the Methodists — the general rules which have had their 
approbation since the days of Mr. Wesley, and which indeed 
are an epitome of the gospel rules of morality and vital godli- 
ness — class meetings — love-feasts, &c have his unqualified ap- 
probation. That having, himself, been twice in the travelling 
connexion, he heartily approves of an itinerant ministry. And 
that he has no personal misunderstanding, with either of the 
bishops, nor any other man in authority. 

It may be asked, what are his reasons then, for making this pub- 
lication? He will answer this question candidly. He felt it to be 
his duty to make this investigation, and having made it, he now 
feels it his duty to set forth the measures that were taken 
to lay the foundation of claims which are so much at variance 
with the rights of the people. He thinks, by having these 
things before them, the laity and local ministry, may be induced 
to persevere in demanding their rights, the enjoyment of which, 
he deems to be necessary to the purity of the ministry and the 
unity of the church, 



PREFACE. V. 

He conceives it to be his duty, and the duty of every friend 
to mutual rights, to resist the first obvious encroachments on the 
liberties of the people, made by men in power: and to expose 
the pretensions of those who could hold such language to their 
equals, as " pardon us if we know no such rights, if we com- 
prehend no such privileges." 

He thinks this exposure will tend much to lessen, if it will 
not totally overcome, the opposition of travelling preachers to 
"representation." For he cannot conceive, how the bishops 
and present race of travelling preachers, who are clear in this 
matter, can deny representation to the laity, when they learn by 
what means their " fathers" contrived to monopolize exclusive 
legislation to themselves. 

It is due to Mr. Wesley, that he should be exculpated from 
the charge of "recommending the episcopal mode of church 
government" and the creation of bishops, after saying, "Lord 
King's account of the primitive church, convinced me many 
years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order." 
And especially, after he had expressed himself in the following 
manner: " Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a 
scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never by my con- 
sent call me bishop." 

It is believed that a community living under the influence of 
such a form of government as that of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, where the members are not permitted to participate in 
legislation, will sooner or later prefer a monarchical form of 
civil government to the pure republican institutions of our happy 
country. And it is desirable that the government should be re- 
vised and placed on such a foundation, that the rights of all our 
ministers and members shall be secured, and that posterity may 
be able to look back with veneration at the institutions of the 
church, as they shall have received them from their fathers. 

Baltimore, April, 1827. 



SECTION I. 

We hold as incontrovertible truths, that in the different forms 
®f civil government, tuere are first principles which must be equit- 
able, in order that the government may be secure : they must be 
known, in order that they may be respected : and, they must be 
properly administered, in order that they may contribute to the hap- 
piness of the people. But, when the principles of a government are 
unjust or oppressive, it becomes necessary to keep them concealed 
from the eyes of the multitude ; for the perpetuity of a government 
founded on such principles, must depend on the ignorance of the 
people, or on physical force. Hence the necessity of large stand- 
ing armies in all monarchical and tyrannical governments to keep 
the people in awe. 

Tne principles of ecclesiastical government, as laid down in the 
New Testament, are just ; and the divine author of them, has en- 
joined an examination of them, that their equity may be known. 
In his word, they stand at an equal distance from ignorance or 
force ; and they are calculated to promote and secure the happiness 
of every member of the Christian church. 

For a considerable time past, we have thought our ecclesiastical 
polity is susceptible of great "improvement ; and the more closely 
we have examined the principles of the government of our church, 
the more fully we are convinced of the correctness of our opinion. 
We have, it is true, occasionally taken the liberty of expressing 
our sentiments upon this important point, and are very conscious, 
that in doing so, we never intended to give any offence. Actuated 
by the same motives, we again declare, that we disclaim all inten- 
tion of giving offence by any of the remarks, we shall make in stat- 
ing our objections to the present form of church government. And, 
from the part we have, hitherto, taken in the work of reform, we 
conceive it is a duty we owe to God and truth — to ourselves and 
our children— to the church to whioh we belong — nay to the whole 
Christian community, to be explicit and candid in stating our objec- 
tions. 

In the year 1784, Dr. Coke received authority from Mr. John 
Wesley to visit these United States, for the purpose of superintend- 
ing the societies which were at that time formed, and of ordaining 



8 

ministers to administer the sacraments to the same. He was in- 
vested by Mr. Wesley, with an authority to superintend the said 
societies, not to create any new ecclesiastical officer, unknown to 
the primitive church. As soon as the Doctor arrived in the United 
States, he hastened to meet Mr Asbury ; and upon their first in- 
terview, u they consulted together about the plan," by which the 
church should be governed ; (see Rev'd. J. Lee's history of Metho- 
dism, page 93) and accordingly, in a short time thereafter, the 
preachers who met in conference in Baltimore, formed themselves 
into an episcopal church, and said, that in doing so, they f follow- 
ed the counsel of Mr John Wesley, who recommended the Episco- 
pal mode of church government? 1 See the minutes of conference 
for 1785. Where this •' counsel" is to be found, or in what official 
paper this recommendation is contained, we have never yet been 
able to find out. And after searching for it for thirty -five years, we 
are no nearer the discovery nQW than we were when we commenced 
the search. No such " counsel" is given by Mr. Wesley in his let- 
ter to Dr. Coke, nor in that which he addressed to *' Dr, Coke, Mr. 
Asbury, and our brethren in North America." So far from this 
" counsel" being contained in those official papers, the term " epis- 
copal" is not to be found in either of them. Nor is there any ex- 
pression, coming from Mr. Wesley's pen, which we have ever seen, 
in those papers, or elsewhere, that would justify us in saying, he 
" recommended*' the Episcopal form of church government to the 
Methodist societies in the United States. 

As it is to our episcopacy we attribute the rupture which took 
place between Mr. Wesley and the American conference, and as it 
is to the unseriptural powers claimed and exercised by it, we as- 
cribe the greater part, if not the whole of the troubles and seces- 
sions which the church has experienced since it has been organized, 
it may not be amiss to examine the foundation upon which our epis- 
copal edifice has been erected. And, latterly, our attention has 
been directed to this point in particular, because the last general 
conference, in their circular, rested their refusal of representation 
on prescription ; and avowed their determination to support" the 
institutions of the church as we received them from our fathers." 
As they denied our right to representation, we deemed it proper to in- 
vestigate their right to preclude us from it. As they declared they 
could " not cot? prehend such privileges" as we aspired after; we 
thought it was highly necessary to examine their title to exclusive 
legislation. While we were revolving this matter over in our mind, 
'♦ Moore's life of Wesley" in which Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr. As- 
bury under date of Sept. 20th 1788, condemning him and Dr. Coke 
for assuming the title of bishop, was issued from the press ; and 
gave us such a view of the subject as ve never had before. This 
letter we have collated with other documents, and it has produced 
a conviction in our mind, that our brethren's title to their ecclesias- 
tical estate is not quite so valid as they may have supposed it to be. 
In making ^his assertion, we are aware of some of the objections 
which may be preferred against our sentiments. Indeed, we are 



9 

prepared to expect something more ; but as a candid inquirer after 
truth,we are determined to follow her whithersoever she may conduct 
us. It, surely, would be imposing too heavy a tax onus,for our itin- 
erant brethren to demand a tacit acquiescence in their pretensions, 
under pain of their displeasure ; or to require us, contrary to the 
dictates of our conscience, to allow them to retain, what we believe 
belongs to us of right. Lf they are sure they are able to sustain the. 
high ground they have taken, they may possibly feel a pleasure in 
being called into open court to substantiate their claims. If they 
have <c a good and sufficient title" they c*tn, and no doubt will pro- 
duce it. If they decline the call, or are silent upon the subject, the 
public will be at no loss to perceive to what cause their silence is 
to be attributed. 

In the minutes of conference for 1785, we are told, that in adopt' 
ing the present form of government, the conference " followed the 
counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal mode 
of church government." And in the book of discipline, see chapter 
l.sec. I. we are informed, that this form was adopted because " Mr. 
Wesley preferred the episcopal mode of church government to any 
other?' Now, these are the only public records of the society ;anU 
from the above quotations, it will be perceived, that no previous ex- 
pression of the wishes of the members of the society, nor any scrip- 
tural precedent or authority was offered as a reason for the adop- 
tion of this particular form; but it was made to rest solely and ex- 
clusively on Mr. Wesley's authority. Surely then, it was incum- 
bent on those who gave Mr. Wesley's name as the only sanction 
for the measure, to have shewn where he gave them such authority. 
They ought to have told us in what part of his writings he gave the 
advice, which they say he gave the societies, to adopt the episcopal 
mode of church government. Unless this is now done, and we are 
constrained to believe it never can be done, we must demur respect- 
ing the authenticity of the fact, and in the meantime we shall pro- 
ceed to to shew our reasons for so doing. 

First. We shall enquire, what views do ecclesiastical writers 
give us, of an episcopal form of church government ? 

Secondly. Did Mr. Wesley, by appointing Dr. Coke a superin- 
tendent over the Methodist societies in America, intend to consti- 
tute him a bishop, and institute for those societies an episcopal form 
of church government? 

First. What views do ecclesiastical writers give us of an epis- 
copal form of church government ? 

1 " Episcopacy is that form of church government in which dio- 
cesan bishops are established as distinct from and superior to priests 
or presbyters." Buck's Theological Dictionary. Art. Episco- 
pacy. 

" Episcopalians, in the strict sense of the word, are those who 
maintain that episcopacy is of apostolic institution, or that the 
church of Christ has ever been governed by three distinct orders, 
bishops, presbyters or priests, and deacons ; — that no one has a right 
to execute the ministerial office, without having previously received 



10 

■ 

a divine commission ;— and the exclusive right of granting this 
commission is vested in the bishops as successors of the apostles." 
R. Adams's Religious World Displayed, vol. 2. Art. Episcopalians. 
rt The question between the Episcopalians and Piesbyterians" 
says the same writer rt is not, what degree of power and splendour 
the primitive bishops enjoyed, or what might be the precise extent 
of their dioceses ? but simply and solely whether they were the same 
as the Presbyters, or whether they were a distinct order ? The 
Episcopalians contend for Jhis last opinion." vol. 2. page 282. 

2. " As bishops and presbyters are distinct officers, so there 
must be distinct powers appropriated to each of them. For as the 
notion of an office implies power, so distinct offices do necessarily 
infer distinct powers." Archbishop Potter on Church Government, 
page 197. 

3. u . The lineal succession of bishops from the apostles was a 
thing undoubted. Ibid, page 154. 

And again, " Bishops were ordained in all churches by the apos- 
tles, and derived from them in a constant succession." page 155. 

4. 4i It is a principle universally established among Episcopalians, 
that a succession from the apostles in the order of bishops, as an 
order superior to and distinct from presbyters, is a requisite with- 
out which a valid Christian ministry cannot be preserved ; and that 
such bishops alone possess the power of ordaining and commission- 
ing ministers to feed the flock of Christ." 

5. '« There cannot be more than one bishop at the same time in a 
church ; a second bishop is no bishop at all ; and they who adhere 
to him, are schismatics and have no title to the church's communi- 
on, or the privileges of the new covenant." Archbishop Potter. 
page 161. 

" I shall then lay down as sure, that there was but one supreme 
bishop in a place, that was the c o ETnVxejre? the bishop, by way of 
eminency and propriety. The proper pastor and minister of his 
parish, to whose care and trust the souls ot that church or parish 
over which he presided are principally and more immediately com- 
mitted. So saith Cyprian, there is but one bishop in a church at a 
time." Lord King, page 12. 

6. ^ For since the distinction of bishops and presbyters has been 
of divine appointment, it necessarily follows that the power of 
ordination, which is the chief mark of this distinction was reserved 
to the bishops by the same appointment." Potter, page 2^0. 

7- According to the usage of the church of England, 4t The Arch- 
bishop, by the King's direction, confirms the bishop, (elected by the 
dean and chapter) and afterwards consecrates him by imposition of 
hands,according to the form laid down in the Common Prayer Book. 
Hence we see, that a bishop differs from an Archbishop in this, that 
an Archbishop, with bishops, consecrates a bishop, as a bishop with 
priests, consecrates a priest." Nicholson's Encyclopedia. Art. 
Bishop. 

We have here some of the most prominent features of an episco- 
pal church, as laid down by writers of great celebrity We would 






11 

aow ask our brethren, who say, Mr. Wesley «< recommended the 
ep scopal mode of church government ," if there is in any of the letters 
which he wrote, a single line that would lead us to suppose, that he 
held any one of the foregoing particulars ? Nay, did he not posi- 
tiveW say, he did not hold them ? What kind of an episcopal gov- 
ernment then must it be, that has not in it a* single feature of episco- 
pacy as described by ecclesiastical writers f 

Secondly. We shall now proceed to enquire, whether Mr. Wes- 
ley intended by appointing Dr. Coke a superintendent over the 
Methodist societies in America, to constitute him a bishop, and in- 
stitute for those societies an episcopal form of church government ? 
We answer, he did not, and assign for our opinion the following rea- 
sons. r _.. 

1. Because, in the document which is given as proof, Mr. Wes- 
ley is totally silent on the subject. He did not once use the term 
" bishop" or " episcopal," in his letter with reference to us ; nor did 
he, as far as we can perceive, express any wish, or give any recom- 
mendation to the American Methodists to adopt the episcopal form 
of government in preference to any other. A fairer opportunity, 
surely could not have offered, to recommend episcopacy, if he had 
been inclined to do so : and we are utterly at a loss to conceive, 
fct)w he could have recommended this particular form of govern- 
ment, and never once have mentioned it by name. As it has been 
asserted however, that he did recommend it, we shall transcribe 
the chapter frOm our book of discipline, in which this assertion is 
made, and then give Mr. Wesley's letter, that every one may com- 
pare these two documents, and judge for himself. 

" The preachers and members of our society in general, being 
convinced that there was a great deficiency of vital religion in the 
church of England in America, and being in many places destitute 
of the Christian sacraments, as several of the clergy had forsaken 
their churches, requested the late Rev. John Wesley^ to take such 
measures, in his wisdom and prudence, as would afford them suita- 
ble relief in their distress. 

In consequence of this, our venerable friend, who under God, had 
been the father of the great revival of religion now extending over 
the earth, by the means of the Methodists, determined to ordain 
ministers for America; and for this purpose, in the year 1784, sent 
over three regularly ordained clergy : but pretering the episcopal 
mode of church government to any other, he solemnly set apart, by 
the imposition of his hands, and prayer, one of them, viz. Thomas 
Coke, doctor of civil law, late of Jesus-College, in the University 
of Oxford, and a presbyter of the Church of England, for the epis- 
copal office ; and having delivered to him letters ot episcopal orders, 
commissioned and directed him to set apart Francis Jlsbury, then 
general assistant of the Methodist society in America, for the same 
episcopal office, he, the said Francis Jlsbury being first ordained 
deacon and elder. In consequence of which, the said Francis Jls- 
bury, was solemnly set apart for the said episcopal office, by prayer, 
and the imposition of the hands of the said Thomas Cote, other 



12 

regularly ordained ministers assisting in the sacred ceremony. At 
which time the general conference, held at Baltimore, did unani- 
mously receive the said Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury as their 
bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity of their episcopal ordi- 
nation." [Book of Discipline, chap. 1 , sec. 1.] 

The following is Mr. Wesley's letter taken frbm the minutes of 
Conference for 1785. 

" Bristol, September 10th, 1784. 

ei To Dr. Coke, Mr. Jlsbury, and our Brethren in North America. 

" 1. By a very uncommon train of providences, many of the pro- 
vinces of North America are totally disjoined from the British em- 
pire, and erected into Independent States. The English govern- 
ment has no authority over them either civil or ecclesiastical, any 
more than over the states of Holland. A civil authority is exer- 
cised over them, partly by the Congress, partly by the State As- 
semblies. But no one either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical 
authority at all. In this peculiar situation some thousands of the 
inhabitants of these States desire my advice: and in compliance 
with their desire, I have drawn up a little sketch. 

u 2. Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me 
many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and 
consequently have the same right to ordain. For many years I have 
been importuned from time to time, to exercise this right, by ordain- 
ing part of our travelling preachers. But I have still refused, not 
only for peace's sake ; but because I was determined, as little as 
possible to violate the established order of the national church to 
which I belonged. 

" 3. But the case is widely different between England and North 
America. Here there are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction. In 
America there are none, and but few parish ministers. So that for 
some hundred miles together there is none either to baptize or to 
administer the Lord's Supper. Here therefore my scruples are at 
an end : and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I violate no order 
and invade no man's right, by appointing and sending labourers in- . 
to the harvest. 

" 4. I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis 
Asbury, to be joint Superintendents,* over our brethren in North 
America. As also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Vasey, to act as 
Elders among them, by baptizing and administering the Lord's 
Sapper. 

" 5. If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way 
of feeding; and guiding those poor sheep in the wilderness, I will 
gladly embrace it. At present I cannot see any better method than 
that I have taken. 

" *As the translators of our version of the bible have used the English word 
Bishop instead of Superintendent, it has been thought by us, that it would 
appear more scriptural to adopt their term Bishop." 



13 

{ * 6. It has indeed been proposed, to desire the English bishops 
to ordain part of our preachers for America. But to this I object, 
1, I desired the bishop of London to ordain one only ; but could not 
prevail : 2, If they consented, we know the slowness of their pro- 
ceedings ; but the matter admits of no delay. 3, If they would or- 
dain them now, they would likewise expect to govern them. And 
how grievously, would this entangle us ? 4. As our American 
brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State, and from 
the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again, either with 
the one or the other. — They are now at full liberty, simply to fol- 
low the scriptures and the primitive church. And we judge it best 
that they should stand fast in that liberty, wherewith God has so 
strangely made them free." JOHN WESLEY." 

We have now placed these two documents before our readers, 
and invite their particular attention to them. The one was written 
by somebody, we know not by whom, for it has no name affixed to 
it, and has found its way into our book of discipline. The other 
was written by Mr. Wesley himself, and bears his signature. The 
former was written several years after the adoption of the pre- 
sent form of government, which event took place in 1784 ; and 
it speaks of Mr. Wesley as " the late Rev'd John Wesl.-y" who 
died in 1/91. The latter is dated «' Bristol Sept. 10, 1784"" and is 
given (we repeat it) as the sole authority for our episcopal mode of 
church government. Between the former and the latter, there is 
manifestly a great disagreement. In the former the term u episco- 
pal'' occurs six times, and the word '* bishops" once. In the latter, 
neither " episcopal, nor i! bishop," in their application to our church, 
is to be found at all. We are at a loss to conceive, how it could 
have bt- en said, that •' Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal mode 
of church government." when there is not, in this letter, a single 
word recommendatory of it, from beginning to end. Those who 
could find such a recommendation here, must have looked through 
tlie eyes of Pope Innocent III, who discovered a Pope in the first 
chapter of Genesis. is For the firmament of heaven (i. e.) of the 
universal church, God made two great lights, (i. e.) he ordained two 
dignities or powers, which are the pontifical authority, and the re- 
gal power ; but that which rules the days, (i. e.) spiritual matters, 
is the greater, but that which governs carnal things is the lesser."* 

Having searched our book of discipline in vain, for a recommend- 
ation of the episcopal mode of church government, we shall now ex- 
amine the prayer book abridged by Mr. W. for the use of "the Me- 
thodists in North America." To this work we find the following 
prefatory remarks, in which there is a recommendation it is true, 
but it is a recommendation of his abridged edition of the " Common 
prayer of the church of England," to be used by the Methodist 
" Societies in America." 

" I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or 

* Dr. Barrow on the Pope's supremacy, page 105. 



14 

modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, ration 
al piety than the rf Common prayer of the church of England. ;j 
And though the main of it was compiled considerably more than 
two hundred years ago, yet is the language of it, not only, pure, but 
strong and elegant in the highest degree. 

Little alteration is made in the following edition of it (which I 
recommend to our societies in America J except in the following in* 
stances: 

1. Most of the holydays (so called) are omitted, as at present 
answering no valuable end. 

2. The service of the Lord's day, the length of which has been 
often complained of, is considerably shortened. 

3. Some sentences in the offices of baptism, and for the burial of 
the dead are omitted. And 

4. Many psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as being 
highly improper for the mouths of a Christian congregation. 

JOHN WESLEY." 
Bristol, September 9, 1784. 

It is obvious that there is nothing about bishops, or episcopacy 
here ; nor any recommendation of the episcopal mode of church go. 
verriment, nor, .indeed, of any government at all. But a* it is upon 
the Prayer Book our episcopal mode of government is made to rest, 
and as this is the only authority which is attempted to be produced 
for if ; we shall examine it with such a freedom, as we suppose it 
would have to undergo in a court of law, if submitted to the good 
sense of twelve honest and impartial freeholders on oath. We will 
suppose, then, that a member of our church, an advocate for the pre- 
sent mide of government, is brought into court and is called on to 
answer the following questions : 

Q. To what church do you belong? 

A. To the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

Q- What is the form of government of your church ? 

A. ** It is in fact and name, episcopal." 

Q. When was this form of government adopted ? 

A In the year 1784 when the church was organized. 

Q. By whom was it adopted ? 

A. By the travelling preachers. 

Q. Had the societies nothing to do in adopting this mode of gov- 
ernment ? 

A. They had not. 

Q. Am I to understand you to say, that the laity had no repre- 
sentation in the conference, when the church was organized ; and 
that they were not consul led respecting the mode of government by 
which the societies were to be governed ? 

A. They had no representation in that conference, nor were they 
consulted about the form of government. 

Q. Can you tell why it was, that the travelling preachers adopted 
(lie episcopal form of government in preference to any other? 

A. Because Mr. Wesley recommended it. 



15 

Q. Is Mr. Wesley's recommendation the only reason you can as-r 
sign why the travelling preachers adopted it. 
A. It is the only reason. 
Q. Are you sure there was no other ? 
A. I never heard of any other. 

Q. As you say Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal mode of 
government, can you tell where that recommendation can be found ? 
A. In the remarks he makes on the Liturgy of the church of 
England prefixed to his prayer book, printed in London in 1784. 

Q. Are you sure Mr. Wesley recommended the episcopal mode 
of government in these remarks ? 

A. I have always understood he did. But I can give his own 
words. 

" I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or 
modern language which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, ration- 
al piety, than the Common Prayer of the church of England- And 
though the main of it was compiled considerably more than two 
hundred years ago^ yet is the language of it, not only pUre,but strong 
and elegant in the highest degree. Little alteration is made in the 
following edition of it (which 1 recommend to our societies in Amer- 
ica.") These are his words and his name is subscribed to what I 
have read. 

Q. Very well. But will you undertake to say that when Mr 
Wesley recommended his' 1 edition ot the common prayer of the 
church of England," he meant to recommend the episcopal mode 
of church government ? 
A. 1 will not say he did. 

Q. Do you not think that if Mr. Wesley had intended to recom- 
mend the episcopal form of government, he would have expressed 
himself plainly on the subject ? and not recommend an edition of the 
Liturgy., when he intended to recommend an episcopal mode of 
church government ? 
A. I think he would. 

Q. Why, then, is Mr. Wesley made to say, in your book ofdis. 
cipline, he recommended the episcopal mode of government, when 
he only recommended his edition of the Liturgy? 

A. Perhaps those who drew up the account in the discipline 
thought Mr. Wesley recommended this form of government. 

Q. If they really thought so, why did they not give his own words ? 
W T as it not as easy to transcribe what he wrote, as to substitute the 
phrase" the episcopal mode of church government" for ''the Com- 
mon Prayer of the church of England r" and does not substituting 
the one for the other look a little like design ? 

A. 

But there is another Prayer Book, says one, which was printed in 
London in the year 1786 ; in which" the general minutes of the 
Methodist episcopal church in America" are bound up : and surely, 
this fact, if it will not prove that Mr. Wesley recommended this 
form of government, will at least, prove that it met his approbation 
when adopted. This prayer book now lies before us, and we fin<i 



16 

it differs from the one published by Mr. Wesley in the title page— 
the addition of a new " Article of Religion" — and the inserting of 
the "general minutes.'" In other respects the Prayer Books are so 
much alike, that the one printed in 1786 is not announced as a se- 
cond edition of that work ; nor is any note prefixed explaining the 
reasons for adding a new article of religion, or for inserting "the ge- 
, neral minutes" Every thing, as far as we can discover, stands just 

[ as it did in the Prayer Book of 1784: and every thing, which accord- 

ing to usage we had a right to look for in an altered or improved 
edition, is carefully omitted. 

These minutes, containing seventy-six questions with their an- 
swers, occupy thirty-three pages of the Prayer Book, and are head- 
ed as follows: 

" The General Minutes of the Conferences of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in America, forming the Constitution of the said 
church." 

Let the reader bear in mind that this Prayer Book and these 
"Minutes" were printed in the year 1786; and that they bear in- 
ternal marks which render it doubtful, whether they were printed 
for Mr. Wesley. But even if they had been printed for him, they 
can avail nothing towards proving the matter at issue, viz: that Mr. 
Wesley ''recommended the episcopal mode of church government" 
to the American Methodists, for these ''general minutes" were 
taken at the conference, two years before this Prayer Book was 
printed, and consequently the inserting of them in it, cannot be 
« converted into a recommendation of this particular form of govern- 

ment. 

Nor will the inserting of these ''minutes" in the Prayer Book 
prove that Mr. Wesley approved of the title "the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church;" for in the progress of this work, documents will be 
found, which unequivocally declare his disapprobation of the pro- 
ceedings of the conference in relation to every thing appertaining 
to episcopacy. 

These * ( minutes, " so far from availing any thing in favor of the 
hierarchy, will, we conceive, do it great dis-service. For 1. if the 
minutes inserted in the Prayer Book, be the true and correct ones, 
those published and issued from our book room in a bound volume, 
cannot be genuine; one or the other must have been altered, we leave 
to the admirers of episcopacy to say which. 2. If "the Minutes" in 
the Prayer Book be the genuine ones, then according to the title, 
they "form a Consitution for the Methodist Episcopal Church." So 
that those who say the restrictive rules of 1 808 are a constitution, 
must be mistaken: or, if they are not mistaken, then we have two 
constitutions, the one a new, and the other an old one. 

We intimated above, that the Prayer Book printed in 1786 in 
which "the general minutes of the conferences of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church" are inserted, was not printed by Mr. Wesley. 
In proof of this point, it may be necessary to state that Mr. -Wrs- 
ley had his own printing office, types and printing press*-, where 
he had his books printed, as may be seen by the following clause in 
his will. 



17 



"Feb. 25, 1789. 
a lgive my types, printing presses and every thing pertaining 
thereto, to Mr. Thomas Rankin and George Whitefield, in trust, for 
the use of the conference. 

JOHN WESLEY." 

Those who would offer the inserting of the "general minutes" in 
the Prayer Book, as proof of Mr. Wesley's approbation of the form 
of governmenr,or the title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, should 
first prove that the Prayer Book was printed by Mr. Wesley, and 
the Minutes inserted with his knowledge and consent. This can- 
not be done; for we have evidence from the Prayer Book itself, that 
it was not printed at Mr. Wesley's press, but at that belonging to 
"Frys and Couchman." The circumstance, therefore, of its being 
printed by "Frys and Couchman," and not by Mr. Wesley, 
renders the whole affair suspicious, and will, when taken in con-? 
nexion with the statements made by the conference before and 
after its publication, nullify any argument that may be attempted 
to be adduced in favor of Mr. Weslev's approbation. 

We shall now give the title page of three Prayer Books, that our 
readers may perceive wherein they agree and wherein they differ. 



NO. 1. 
"The Sunday service of the 
Methodists in North America, 
with other occasional services. 
London, printed in the year 
MDCCLXXXIV." 



NO. 2. 

''The Sunday service of the 
Methodists in the United States 
of America, with other occasion- 
al services. London, printed 
by Fryt and Couchman, Wor- 
ship street. Upper Moorjields, 
1786." 



NO. 3. 
"The Sunday service of the 
Methodists with other occasion- 
al services. The fourth edition, 
London, printed in the year 
1792." 



That which we have designated by No. 1, was printed by Mr. 
Wesley — was brought out to "North America" by Dr. Coke was 
adopted by the conference of 1784, and was used by the preachers 
after the church was organized. In this Prayer Book there is no- 
thing about episcopacy, nor any recommendatiou of the episcopal 
snode of church government. No. 2, was printed in London, by 
"Frys and Couchman," where Mr. Wesley had his printing offic . It 
was printed for somebody, (we know not for whom; perhaps for Dr. 
Coke, who in 1786, was under censure by Mr. Wesley, for the ad- 
dress he presented to general Washington,) and contains an Article 
of Religion, not contained in Mr Wesley's Prayer Book, and 
the Minutes of the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
a title which we believe Mr. Wesley never approved. No. 5, was 
printed after Mr. Wesley's decease, for the Methodists in Europe, 
and is introduced here, merely to shew the coincidence in the im- 
prints no printer's name being affixed to those which were printed 
at Mr. Wesley's press- We might also mention, that after the 
publication of the Prayer Book of 1786, a rule was passed in the 
conference that no book should be sold among his societies, which 
was not printed at his press. But whether this rule was passed 
with special reference to the Prayer Book of 1786 or not, we cannot 
say. 



18 

We shall notice only one question, in the general minutes, with 
its answer, and then we shall have done with the Prayer Book. 

" Q. 3. As the ecclesiastical as well as civil affairs of these United 
States have passed through a very considerable change by the revo- 
lution, what plan of church government shall we hereafter pursue ? 

A. We will form ourselves into an episcopal church, under the 
direction of superintendents, elders, deacons, and helpers, accord- 
ing to the forms of ordination annexed to our Liturgy, and the form 
of discipline set forth in these minutes." 

The reader is now requested to compare this account of the ori- 
gin of our episcopacy and church government, with the account pub- 
lished in our Book of Discipline, and with the one in our Book of Mi- 
nutes. The difference is so glaring, that every one must see it. In this 
answer there is nothing about Mr. Wesley's " recommending the 
episcopal mode of church government"— -nothing about his "prefer- 
ring" that mode to any other — nothing about his " counsel" to or- 
dain a third order of ministers— nothing about a "separate and in- 
dependent church." Nothing of all this ; for to use the language of 
a preacher, who was a member of the conference of 1 784. — v These 
names were born in America, and never had Mr. Wesley's appro- 
bation." 

We 1iave one thing more to offer, namely, the third section of the 
fifth edition of the Book of Discipline, printed in New York in 1795, 
which is as follows : 

" On the Nature and Constitution of our Church. — We are tho- 
roughly convinced, that the Church of England, to which we have 
been united, is deficient in several of the most important parts of 
Christian discipline ;and that(afew ministers and members except- 
ed) it has lost the life and power of religion. We are not ignorant 
of the spirit and designs it has ever discovered in Europe, of rising 
to pre-eminence and worldlydignities by virtue of a national estab- 
lishment, and by the most servile devotion to the will of temporal 
governors : and we fear, the same spirit will lead the same church 
in these United States (though altered in its name) to similar de- 
signs and attempts, if the number and strength of its members will 
ever afford a probability of success ; and particularly to obtain a na- 
tional establishment, which we cordially abhor- as the great bane of 
truth and holiness, and consequently a great impediment to the pro- 
gress of vital Christianity. 

" For these reasons, we have thoughtit our duty to form ourselves 
into an independent church. And as the most excellent mode of 
church government, according £o our maturest judgment, h that of a 
moderate episcopacy; and as we are persuaded, that the uninterrupt- 
ed succession of bishops from the apostles, can be proved neither 
ftv>m the scripture nor antiquity ; we therefore have constituted our- 
selves into an episcopal church, under the direction of bishops, el- 
ders, deacons and preachers, according to the forms of ordination 
annexed to our Prayer Book, and the regulations laid clown in this 
form of discipline." 



19 

At what precise time this section was written, we are not able to 
say ; but think it was about the year 1787, that being the year in 
which Mr. Wesley's name was left off the minutes, the term " bish- 
ops" introduced — and the church declared u independent." We 
are pretty confident it was written after the Prayer Book of 1786 
was printed, and the " General Minutes" were published. Had the 
inserting of the minutes in the Prayer Book been considered any 
proof of Mr. Wesley's approbation of the form of government or 
the title of the church, no doubt the conference would have noticed 
that fact, and appealed to it as proof. Instead of that, there is no 
reference whatever made to those minutes, nor is Mr. Wesley's 
name once mentioned in the section. Indeed, reasons are assigned 
in it for declaring themselves an independent church, and for adopt- 
ing the episcopal mode of government, very different from all that 
was given before. At one time such reasons are assigned as grew 
out of the changes" in ecclesiastical and civil affairs produced by 
the revolution." At another, we are told it was because li Mr. Wes- 
ley recommended the episcopal mode of church government." And 
here we are told it was because the church of England (altered in 
name) had lost " the life and power of religion, a few of her minis- 
ters and members excepted," — because as rt she had ever discovered 
designs of rising to pre-eminence in Europe," fears were entertained 
that the same spirit would lead to similar designs and attempts in 
these United States — and to prevent a national establishment, they 
thought it their duty to become an u independent church," and adopt 
a" moderate episcopacy." 

If we are mistaken in fixing the precise period when the above 
section was written, we cannot be mistaken respecting the judg- 
ment which will be pronounced on the person who wrote it, when it 
shall have been known, that he made a proposition to be united to 
this very same church, himself and his colleague in the episcopacy, 
to receive consecration from one of its bishops, and the preachers 
who had been ordained by himself to be re-ordained by this same 
gentleman. 

2. We think Mr. Wesley never intended to create Dr. Coke a 
bishop, because he says, c< Lord King's account of the primitive 
church convinced me many years ago, that bishops and presbyters 
are the same order." As he believed, with Lord King, that there 
were but two orders of ministers in the church, namely bishops or 
presbyters, and deacons — as he believed that bishops and presby- 
ters were the same order, and that there was no higher order than 
a presbyter, he could not have intended to create a third. The dis- 
tinction between bishops and presbyters being the foundation of the 
episcopal form of government, and this distinction having no exist- 
ence in fact, nor in Mr. Wesley's creed, our episcopal superstruc- 
ture falls to the ground. 

3. As he believed bishops and presbyters are the same order, he 
believed also, they possess the same powers; for he says, " they have 
the same right to ordain" If so, then Dr. Coke, being a presbyter 
of the church of England, had as good an ecclesiastical right to or- 



20 

dain ministers for the Methodist societies in America as Mr. Wes- 
ley himself had, if the preachers would have submitted to receive 
ordination from the Doctor's hands. But knowing that Mr Asbu- 
ry had declared " he would receive rto coadjutor in the superinten- 
de»cy of the work ;" he thought it best to guard against every ob- 
jection that might be made, or difficulty that might arise in carry- 
ing into effect Mr. Wesley's wishes. This will appear from the fol- 
lowing extract of a letter which he wrote to Mr. W dated August 
9th, 1784. See Moore's life of Wesley, vol. 2, page £76. 

« Honoured awd Dear Sir : — 

" The more attentively I consider the subject, the more expedi- 
ent it appears to me, that the power of ordaining others should be 
received by me from you. by the imposition of your hands : and that 
you should lay hands on brother Whatcoat and brother Vasey, for 
the following reasons : 1. It seems to me the most scriptural way, 
and most agreeable to the practice of the primitive churches. 2.1 may 
want all the influence inAmerica which you can throw into my scale. 
Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds, that he saw a letter in 
London from Mr. Asbury, in which he observed i( that he would not 
receive any person deputed by you to take any part of the superin- 
tendency of the work invested in him, or words evidently implying 
so much." 

4. u The uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable, which 
no man ever did, or can prove." Rev'd. J. Wesley. In this short 
sentence Mr. Wesley not only denies the uninterrupted succession, 
but the exclusive right of bishops to ordain, and in denying these, he 
denies the Jure Divino of bishops which has always been made to rest, 
upon apostolic and uninterrupted succession.* See Archbishop 
Potter. 

5. Mr. Wesley, by appointing Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury joint 
supeiintendents, did not intend to create them bishops; for then there 
would have been a plurality of bishops at the same time, having the 
pastoral charge of the same church, a thing contrary to primitive 
usage, as ha* been already stated by Lord King. 

6. Because Mr, Wesley in the letter he wrote to Mr. Asbury, 
Sept. 20th, 1788, in which he intended to make known his utter dis- 

*" Bancroft, in a sermon preached at Paul's cross, Jan. 12th, 1588, main- 
tained, that the bishops of England were a distinct order from priests, and 
had superiority over them jure divino and directly from God This doctrine 
had never before been publicly broached in England : it was new and 
strange to both Puritans and Churchmen. Till this time it had been always 
supposed, that the order of bishops, as distinct from, and superior to presby- 
ters, was a mere human institution. Statesmen took the alarm at the power 
of bishops being- derived from God, and not from the magistrate, as this 
struck at the Queen's supremacy * But the new doctrine|soon became fash- 
ionable among the clergy ; and the nonsense which we have since heard a- 
bout the episcopal succession, sprung out of.it." Isaac's Church Claims In- 
vestigated, page 71. 

* Neai's history of the Puritans, vol. 1. chap. 7. 



21 

approbation of Mr. Asbury's assuming the title of bishop, and al~ 
lowing himself to be called by that name, concludes with the fol- 
lowing remark.— «« Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but 
let the Methodists know their calling better." Why does Mr. 
Wesley introduce the Presbyterians here ? And what connexion 
has this sentence with the rest of his letter? We perceive none 
The fact i?, this sentence without an explanatory key, is not intelli- 
gible. But if we connect it with a sentence in Dr. Cokt 's letter to 
the Bishop of London, dated March 29th, 1799, we think the key 
is found, which makes his meaning quite clear. The Doctor says, 
fa But I return with a tull conviction that our numerous societies in 
America would have been a regular Presbyterian church, if Mr. 
Wesley and myself had not taken the steps which we judged it neces- 
sary to adopt." With this sentence before us, we think we under- 
stand Mr. Wesley's meaning,with reference to the Presbyterians. It 
seems probable that Dr. Coke, or Mr. Anbury, or both, had attempt- 
ed to make an apology, and explain to Mr. Wesley the alleged 
reasons, for having organised an episcopal form of church govern- 
ment ; and, together with other things, urged the necessity there was 
for taking such a course to prevent the Presbyterians from gaining 
too much influence But after all that was advanced in justifica- 
tion of the measure, including all that could be said about the Pres- 
bvteiians and the disposition of the people to be Presbyterians, Mr. 
Wesley disapproves of their procedure, and says, " Men may call 
me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but 
they shall never by my consent, call me a bishop. For my sake, for 
God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this. Let the Pres- 
byterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know their 
calling better." Thus denouncing in the most severe and unquali- 
fied terms, the very thing which it is said he " recommended." 

But it may be asked, if Mr. Wesley did not intend to create 
Dr. Coke a bishop, why dki he lay his hands on him, and give him 
letters of ordination, inasmuch as the Doctor was, at that very time 
a presbyter of the church of England, as well as himself? This, we 
acknowledge, was always a matter that appeared to us to be in- 
volved in mystery ; but since the publication of Mr. Wesley's let- 
ter upon the subject, we think this mystery is happily cleared up. 
Let it be distinctly noted (1.) that Mr. Wesley acknowledged in the 
letter which he gave Dr. Coke, (a letter of appointment, not of ordi- 
nation as it has been called, for the term ordination is not fou d in 
it) that the Doctor was his equal in point of order ; for in speaking 
of himself, he styles himself" a presbyter of the church of England," 
and when he speaks ot the Doctor, he styles him " a presbyter of the 
church of England'' also. (2) Mr. Wesley declared his conviction, 
a conviction produced by reading the writings of Lord King, that 
presbyters and bishops are the same order ; and that there was no 
higher order in the church than that of a presbyter. (3) To sup- 
pose then, that Mr. Wesley intended by the imposition of his hands, 
to create the Doctor a bishop, after the unequivocal declaration ha 
made of the identity of bishops and presbyters, would be to affix, on 



22 

Mr. Wesley the charge of inconsistency, if nothing else. Nor will 
the matter be mended by saying, as some have done, he secretly in- 
tended the thing, but not the name ; and that he recommended, to 
the American societies, the episcopal form of church government, 
although he so strongly opposed the use of the term bishop ! And 
is it possible, that any one can entertain such an opinion of Mr. 
Wesley ? If so, no opinion can be more incorrect and ill-founded. 
We appeal to the whole of Mr. Wesley's long and eminently use- 
ful life for a refutation of this sentiment. When did he ever 
act in the above disingenuous and Jesuitical manner ? When wag 
he ever known to practise that kind of douhle dealing ? () ! how 
unjust to load his name and memory with such obloquy, for the poor 
and paltry satisfaction of trying to support our episcopacy ? (4) 
If Mr. Wesley ordained Dr. Coke a bishop, in the common accep- 
tation of that term, then did he create a church officer greater than 
himself ; and of consequence he brought himself into subjection to 
Dr. Coke, by making the Doctor his superior. The same remark 
will hold good with respect to his subjection to Mr. Asbury, and ev- 
ery other person, that might be raised to the episcopate. (5.) If the 
Doctor was constituted a bishop, he was raised to a rank above a 
presbyter, and invested with superior powers. In that case, he that 
was sent, was greater than he that sent him ; thereby affording an 
instance of conduct in both parties, that has no parallel in either 
civil or ecclesiastical history. For then, Mr. Wesley who was 
only a presbyter, and consequently inferior to a bishop, assum- 
ed the prerogative to send his superior to do a work, in his name, 
which he himself could not go to do. And he not only gave him in- 
structions how to act, but provided for and supported him in the ex- 
ecution of the duties assigned him. Nay more, the inferior called 
his superior to an account for his conduct, and from the mere sov- 
ereignty of his own will, punished that supeiior by leaving his name 
out of the minutes of the British conference for one year. (6.) If the 
Doctor, by the imposition of Mr. Wesley's hands, is created a bishop, 
the objection of the Rev'd. Doctor Home, bishop of Norwich, lies 
in full force. He says, (i if a presbyter can ordain a bishop, then 
the greater is blessed of the less, and the order of all things is in- 
verted. " 

To illustrate this argument, let us suppose that any three local el- 
ders in the Methodist Episcopal Church, should pretend to ordain 
another elder, a bishop, by the imposition of their hands, would the 
person thus ordained be a bishop ? And would he be received as a 
bishop by the rest of his brethren ? Whether he would be a bishop 
in the common ecclesiastical sense of that word or not, we shall not 
now decide, but we are pretty certain, he would not be received as 
such by our church. Let those, then,, who advocate " three orders," 
tell us" how " any three elders of the general conference," can do, 
what local brethren of the same order cannot do ? See Book of Dis- 
cipline, chap. 1. sec. 1 ques. 2. Or, let them tell us how Mr. Wes- 
ley and his coadjutors, who were only presbyters of the church of 
England, could create an order of ministers in the church of Christ 



•23 

greater than themselves ? This is done already, says one, in the 
" Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy," page 42, where the author 
proposes this very objection, and answers it. " But says the ob- 
jector, * have presbyters authority to constitute a minister superior 
to themselves P Undoubtedly. It will be admitted, that the apos- 
tles were a grade of ministers superior to the elders; and yet St. 
Paul was ordained by a body of elders. Acts 13, ch. 1, ver. 4" 
From this answer we are justified in supposing, that the author of a 
" Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy" thought St. Paul was not an 
apostle before this transaction ; and that he was raised to be an 
apostle by the imposition of the hands of those prophets and teach- 
ers, whom he calls " elders " All this however, is in flat contradic- 
tion to what St. Paul himself tells us. He says, he was " an apos- 
tle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the 
Father." Gal. ch. 1, ver 1. Dr. Macknight, in his comment ©n this 
text, says, " St. Paul was first made an apostle by Christ, when he 
appeared to him in the way to Damascus, Acts IX. 15. And three 
years after that, his apostolic commission was renewed. Acts XXII. 
20. So that he was first sent forth, neither by the church at Jeru- 
salem, nor by that at Antioch. The Holy Ghost, indeed, ordered 
the prophets at Antioch (Acts XIII 2.) to seperate Paul and Barna- 
bas; but it was to the work whereunto he had called them formerly. 
This separation was simply a recommending them to the grace of 
God by prayer. And in fact it is so termed. Acts XIV. 26. 

Archbishop Potter says, " this rite of imposing hands, whereby 
other ministers were ordained, was never used in making apostles. 
It was a distinguishing part of their character, that they were im- 
mediately called aud ordained by Christ himself, who gave them the 
Holy Ghost by breathing on them ; but neither he. nor any other is 
ever saul to lay hands on them." page 264. 

T. As Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke were of the same order, to wit, 
the order of presbyters, the Doctor had as good a clerical right to or 
dain Mr, Wesley a bishop, as Mr. W. had to ordain the Doctor. 
This was the case according to Mr. Wesley's own views of ecclesi- 
astical usage,and this is the opinion of the Rev.- Mr. Moore, Mr. Wes- 
ley's biographer. " As presbyters of the church, they had, certain- 
ly, the same right to ordain ; and if Dr. Coke had been the father of 
that great work which is called Methodism* he would in that case, 
have had a right to ordain Mr. Wesley to superintend any part of 
that work." Moore's Life of Wesley," vol. 2, pege 278. If we con- 
template the subject then, as it presented itself to Mr. W's. own 
mind at the time he laid his hands on the Doctor, it will assume a 
different aspect from that, in which it has been represented by the 
friends of the hierarchy. Mr. Wesley considered himself, under 
God, the father of all the Methodists in Europe and America. He 
considered, that he had a right to govern those societies which had 
been raised by his instrumentality, and had put themselves under 
his care. He considered it to be his prerogative to transfer the 
power of governing the societies, which he could not personally su- 
perintend, to Dr. Coke, or any other person, he might see fit to ap- 



24 

point. Who could think, that, by making this transfer to Dr. 
Coke, and appointing him to superintend the societies in the United 
States, Mr. Wesley intended to create a third order in the church. 
and establish for those societies, an episcopal mode of government? 
Especially when he substantially affirmed that he believed there 
were but two orders ; and in the same letter declared '• they (the 
American societies) are at full liberty to follow the scriptures and 
the primitive church. Yet this is the whole of the authority upon 
which the friends of espiscopacy rest their cause. 



SECTION II. 

If it be argued that the Doctor was a bishop, raised above the order 
of presbyters by the imposition of Mr. Wesley's hands, how shall 
we account for his conduct in making proposals to bishop White of 
Philadelphia, to become united with the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in these United States,and to have the preachers in the Methodist E- 
piscopal church re-ordained by bishop White, and himself and the 
gentleman connected with him, consecrated* for the episcopal 
office. 

The following is a copy of his letter attested by bishop White 
,c Right Reverend S:r : — 

Permit me to intrude a little on your time, upon a subject of great 
importance. 

You, I believe are conscious that I was brought up in the church 
of England, and have been ordained a presbyter of that church. 
For many yc\rs I was prejudiced, even I think, to bigotry, in favor 
of it : but through a variety of causes and incidents, to mention 
which would be tedious and useless, my mind was exceedingly bi- 
assed on the other side of the question. In consequence of frhis, I 
am not sure but I went further in the separation of our church in 
America, than Mr. Wesley, from whom I had received my commis- 
sion, did intend. He did indeed solemnly invest me, as far as he 
had a right so to do, with episcopal authority, but did not intend, I 
think, that our entire separation should take place. He being press- 
ed by our friends on this side the water, for ministers to administer 
the sacraments to them (there being very few clergy of tne church 
of England then in %e states) he went farther, I am sure, than he 
would have gone if he had foreseen some events which followed. And 
this I am certain of — that he is now sorry for the separation. 

But what can be done for a re-union which I wish for ; and to ac- 
complish which, Mr. Wesley, I have no doubt would use his influence 

* " Or, it may have been the coitseciiatiou of himself and the gentleman 
connected with him, for this measure was hinted in a conversation that af- 
terwards took place between us, altho' he desired me to remark, that it was 
not made a condition of the union." 

Extract of a letter, dated Philadelphia, Sept. 13, 1806. Signed, 

Will* am White. 



25 

to the utmost r The affection of a very considerable number of the 
preachers and most of the people, is very strong towards him, not- 
withstanding the excessive ill usage he received from a few. My 
interest also is not small ; and both his and mine would readily and 
to the utmost, be used to accomplish that (to us) very desirable ob- 
ject: if a readiness were shown by the bishops of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church :o re-unite. 

It is even to your church an object of great importance. We have 
now above 60,000 adults in our society in these states ; and about 
250 travelling ministers and preachers; besides a great number of 
local preachers, very far exceeding the number of travelling preach- 
ers ; and some of these local preachers are men of very considera- 
ble abilities ; but if we number the Methodists as most people num- 
ber the members of their church, viz.— by the families which con- 
stantly attend the divine ordinances in their places of worship, they 
will make a larger bot'y than you possibly conceive. The society, 
I believe, may be safely multiplied by five on an average, to give us 
our stated congregations ; which will then amount to 300,000. And 
if, the calculation, which, [ think some eminent writers have made, 
be just, that three-fifths ot mankind are un-adult (if I may use the 
expression)at any given period,it will follow that all the families, the 
adults of which form our congregations in these states amount to 
750,000. About one-fifth of these are blacks. 

The work now extends in length from Boston to the South of 
Georgia ; and in breadth, from the Atlantic to lake Champlain, Ver- 
mont, Albany, Redstone, HoKtein, Kentucky, Cumberland, &c. 

But there are many hindrances in the way. Can thev be remov- 
ad ? " '■ , ■ ; 

1. Our ordained ministers will not, ought not, to give up their 
right of administering the sacraments. I dont think that the gener- 
ality of them, perhaps none of them, would refuse to submit to a re- 
ordination, if other hindrances were removed out of the way. I 
mu*t here observe, that between 60 and 70 only, out of the two hun- 
dred and fifty have been ordained presbyters, and about 60 deacons 
(only). The Presbyters are the choicest of the whole. 

2. The other preachers would hardly submit to re-union, if the 
possibility of their rising up to ordination depended on the present 
bishops in America. Because, though they are all, I think I may 
say, zealous, pious and very useful men, yet they are not acquaint- 
ed with the learned languages. Besides, they would argue, if the 
present bishops would waive the article of the learned languages,, 
yet their successors might not. 

My desire of a re-union is so sincere and earnest, that these dif- 
ficulties make me tremble : and yet something must be done before 
the death of Mr. Wesley, otherwise I shall despair of success: for 
though my influeuce among the Methodists in these states as well 
as in Europe, is, I doubt not,increasing,yet Mr. Asbury whose influ- 
ence is very capital, will not easily comply, nay, I know he will be 
exceedingly averse to it. 



26 

In Europe where some steps had been taken, tending to a separa 
tion, all is at an end. Mr. Wesley is a determined enemy of it, and 
I have lately borne an open and successful testimony against it. 

Shall I be favoured with a private interview with you in Philadel- 
phia ? I shall be there, God willing, on Tuesday the lTth of May. 
If this be agreeable, I'll beg of you just to signify it in a note direct- 
ed to me at Mr. Jacob Baker's, merchant, Market street, Philadel- 
phia : or if you please by a few lines sent me by the return of 
the post, at Philip Rogers' Esq. in Baltimore, from yourself or Dr. 
Magaw : and I will wait upon you with my friend Dr. Magaw. We 
can then enlarge on the subjects. 

I am conscious of it that secrecy is of great importance in the pre- 
sent state of the business, till the minds of you, your brother bisho >s 
and Mr. Wesley be circumstantially known. I must therefore beg 
that these things be confined to yourself and Or. Magaw, till I have 
the honor of seeing you. 

Thus you see that I have made a bold venture on your honor and 
candour, and have opened my whole heart to you on the subject as 
far as the extent of a small letter will allow me. If you put equal 
confidence in me, you will find me candid and faithful. 

I have, notwithstanding, been guilty of inadvertencies. Very 
lately I found myself obliged (for the pacifying of my conscience) 
to write a penitential letter to the Rev. Mr. Jarratt. which gave him 
great satisfaction : and for the same reason I must write another to 
the Rev. Mr Pettigrew. 

When I was last in America, I prepared and corrected a great 
variety of things for our Magazine, indeed almost every thing that 
was printed, except some loose hints which I had taken of one of my 
journeys, and which I left in my hurry with Mr. Asbury, without 
any correction, entreating him that no part of them might be print- 
ed which could be improper or offensive. But through great inad- 
vertency (I suppose) he suffered some reflections on the characters 
of the two above mentioned gentlemen to be inserted in the Maga- 
zine, for which lam very sorry: and probably shall not rest till I 
have made my acknowledgments more public ; though Mr. Jarrat 
does not desire it. 

I am not sure, whether I have not also offended you, sir, by ac- 
cepting one of the otters made me by you anil Dr. Magaw of the use 
of your churches, about six years ago, on my first visit to Philadel- 
phia, without informing you of our plan of separation from the 
Church of England, if I did offend, [as I doubt I did, especially 
from what you said to Mr. Richard Dallam of Abingdon"] [ sincere- 
ly beg yours and Dr. Magaw's pardon. I'll endeavor to amend. 
But alas ! I am a frail, weak creature. 

I will intrude no longer at present. One thing only I will claim 
from your candour — that if you have no thought of improving this 
proposal, you will burn this letter, and take no more notice of it, (for 
it would be a pity to have us entirely alienated from each other, if 
we cannot unite in the manner my ardent wishes desire) but if you 
will further negocitate the business, I will explain my mind still 
more fully to you on the probabilities of success. 



27 

In the mean time permit me, with g|eat respect, to subscribe my- 
self, Right Reverend Sir, 

Your very humble servant in Christ, 

[Signed] THOMAS COKE, 

The Right Reverend Father in God, 
Bishop White. 
Richmond, April Mth, 1791. 

P. S. You must excuse interlineations, &c. ; I am just going in- 
to the country and have no time to transcribe." 

The Doctor, having, in this letter proposed u a private interview" 
with bishop White, " if agreeable," waited on him upon his arrival 
at Philadelphia. The following extract ot a letter from the bishop 
to one of his friends contains the substance of the conversation which 
passed at the time between himself, Dr. Magaw, and Dr. Coke. 

Philadelphia, July 30th, 1S04. 
" Reverend Sir : 

In the spring of the year 1791, 1 received a letter from Dr. Coke, 
on the subject of uniting the Methodist Society with the Protestant 
Episcopal Church. An answer was returned. In consequence of 
which, Dr. Coke, on his coming to town made me a visit, having not 
then received my letter, but having heard that I had written. Our 
conversation turned chiefly on the aforesaid subject. The general 
outlines of Dr. Coke's plan were, a re-ordination of the Methodist 
ministers, and their continuing under the superintendence then ex- 
isting, and on the practices of their peculiar institutions. There 
was also suggested by him, a propriety j but not a condition made of 
admitting to the Episcopacy, himself and the gentleman associated 
with him in the superintendence of the Methodist societies. This 
intercourse was communicated at the time from Dr. Coke to 
Dr. Magaw. I do not know of any other person then informed of 
it, unless I may except the gentleman above alluded to, by whom, if 
I have been rightly informed, my letter to Dr. Coke was opened in 
his absence ; such a freedom being understood, as I supposed, to 
arise out of the connexion between the two gentlemen. But for 
this part of the statement I cannot vouch. It was understood be- 
tween Dr. Coke and me, that the proposal should be communicated 
to the bishops of the Episcopal Church at the next convention, which 
was to be in September 1792, in New York. This was accordingly 
done. After which I perceived no use of further communication on 
the subject ; and I have not since seen Dr. Coke, nor heard from 
him, nor written to him. 

It appears to me that the above comprehends either explicitly or 
by implication, all the points to which your letter leads. It would 
have been more agreeable to me, if no occasion of this testimony had 
occurred ; and it is now given, merely to prevent the matter being 
understood otherwise than it really is. 

The above is what I have written to Mr. McClaskey : and I re- 
main, &c. &c. 

Your affectionate brother, 

WILLIAM WHITE." 



28 

Upon this correspondence* we shall make a few remarks. The 
first 19 this : The Doctor declares that Mr.W. « c did indeed solemn- 
ly invest me, as far as he had a right so to do, with episcopal autho- 
rity .^ If we remember correctly, this is the only place that we 
have seen, in which the Doctor explicitly states that Mr. Wesley 
44 did invest him with episcopal authority." But whether he con- 
sidered this investiture to grow out of the letter of appointment, or 
as he calls it, the " commission" which he received from Mr. Wes- 
ley, or the imposition of Mr. Wesley's hands, or both, he does not 
say. Let him, however, ascribe it to what he may, the declar- 
ation is attended with one most extraordinary qualifying phrase, 
namely, u as far as he had a right so to do." Why this limita- 
tion ? Was the Doctor unacquainted with ecclesiastical usage in 
consecrating a bishop ? Was he ignorant of the nature of the office 
or meaning of the word ? No. Dio he not know that " wherev- 
er a bishop be, whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, at Constantino- 
ple or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis ; he is of the same 
worth, and of the same priesthood : the force of wealth, or low- 
ness of poverty doth not render a bishop more high or more low. That 
one bishop might exceed another in splendour, in wealth, in reputa- 
tion, in extent of jurisdiction, as one king may surpass another in 
amplitude of territory ; but as all kings, so all bishops are equal in 
office, and essentials of power,"* Why then, in writing to a bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church, who knew these things as well 
as he did, did he use this language, " as far as he had a right so to 
do?" Must he not have known, that this Rev'd gentleman would 
construe these words into an acknowledgement, that Mr. Wesley^ 
who was only a presbyter of the church of England, had no right to 
ordain another presbyter a bishop, or u invest him with episcopal au- 
thority r" Even common readers must be struck with surprise at 
such a sentence, and would be ready to reason on the subject in the 
following manner. Mr. W. had a right to ordain Dr. Coke a bish- 
op, or he had not. If he had this right, why did the Doctor express 
himself in such a way as to make this right questionable ? If he had 
not, why did he say " Mr. Wesley did indeed solemnly invest me 
with episcopal authority ?" It is pretty obvious, we think, that the 
Doctor was conscious of being in a strait. Six years had elapsed, 
since, in his letter to General Washington, he had assumed the ti- 
tle of bishop. Wishing now to become connected with another 
church, he feels the embarrassing situation in which the assumption 
of that title had placed him. To relinquish his claim to it, he does 
not seem to have been disposed ; and to suppoit it, he is obliged 
to make Mr. W r . act in a ridiculous manner, and himself to speak a 
language that is not reconcileable with common sense. For what is 
the plain meaning of the words under consideration ? That Mr. W. 
did a complete act, for which he had only a partial right. To us in- 
deed they seem to contemplate his right as only & fractional part of 
an entire whole. A right, but not an entire right to ordain a bishop i ! 

*St Jerome, quoted by Dr. Barrow on the Pope's supremacy, page 15L 
and Archbishop Potter, page 182. 



29 

Who can understand this ? and even if it were intelligible, it would 
be necessary to ascertain how " far" he had a right to go, or what 
proportion of the whole right this part was, whether one quarter, <,ne 
half, three quarters or seven-eighths. We feel no inclination to pur- 
sue this subject farther, for really, it will not bear a serious investi- 
gation. 

The second point, upon which we shall bestow a few thoughts, re- 
lates to the rt separation of our church in America.'* The Doctor 
says, 1. rf I am sure that he (Mr. W ) went farther than he would 
h ve gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed." 2- That 
" he is now sorry for the separation." And 3. u that he would use 
his influence to the utmost to accomplish a re-union." In speak- 
ing of a separation, the Dr. could not mean a separation from the 
present Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, to which 
he here proposed to be united. Because, 1. neither Mr. W. nor the 
Methodist Episcopal Church had ever been united with her. In* 
deed, she had no organised existence until some time after the Me- 
thodist Episcopal Church was organised. Nor 2. could he allude to 
the church of England, considered abstractly from Mr. W. ; for our 
American brethren were totally disentangled from the state and the 
English hierarchy before Mr. VV. was applied to for his advice. 
"The English government,'' says he, " had no authority over them, 
either civil or ecclesiastical, any more than over the states of Hol- 
land." From which it is evident, that a ! l connexion between the 
Methodists in America and the church of England had ceased be- 
fore Mr. Wesley took any steps to supply us with ministers. 

The separation, then, to which the Dr. refers, is a separation from 
Mr. W. himself and the Methodists in Great Britain as a compo- 
nent part of the established church. And that Mr. W. was sorry 
that the societies here had thrown oft' all connexion with himself we 
readily believe : especially as he was induced to ordain ministers 
for them, in consequence of their representations, and expressing a 
" desire to continue under Ids care, and still to adhere to the doc- 
trines and discipline of the church of England." Nor, is it difficult 
to suppose that he went farther than he would have gone, if he had 
foreseen " the separation which followed " Farther, we believe he 
was sorry, extremely sorry, that both Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury 
transcended the limits of their authority, and assumed to them- 
selves the title of bishops contrary to his express directions. The 
Rev. Henry Moore, Mr.Wesley's biographer, speaks out plainly up- 
on this subject. " With respect to the title of bishop, 1 know that 
Mr. W esley enjoined the Doctor and his associate*, and in the most 
solemn manner, that it should not be taken. In a letter to Mrs. 
Gilbert, the widow of the excellent Nathaniel Gilbert, Esq. of An- 
tigua, a copy of which now lies before me, he states this in the strong- 
est manner. — In this and in every deviation, I cannot be the apolo- 
gist of Dr. Coke ; and I can state, in contradiction to all that Dr. 
Whitehead and Mr. Hampson have said, that Mr. Wesley never 
gave his sanction to any of' these things ; nor was he the author of 
one line of all that Dr. Coke published in America on this subject. 



w 

His views, on these points, were very different from those of his 
zealous son in the gospel. He knew that a work of God "neither 
needed, nor could be aided, nor could recommend itself to pious 
minds by such additions." Moore's life of Wesley, vol. 2. page 
279. 280. 

The third thing which we shall notice, relates to the proposed union 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church wi:h the Portestant ; the re-ordi. 
nation of the preachers, and " the propriety of admitting to the epis- 
copacy, himself and the gentleman who was associated with him in 
the superintendence of the Methodist Societies." Upon this point 
we shall say but little, but that little shall be to express our aston- 
ishment that the Doctor should have stooped to make such an 
offer, on the supposition that he considered himself a bishop. As 
we believe his heart was free, in every part of his public life, from 
the love of ease and the love of money, we can see no other reason 
for the overtures he made to'BWhcip White, than that he did not con- 
ceive he was in the common ecclesiastical sense of the word, a bishop. 
Fourthly and lastly. Had this union taken place, and had Dr. 
Coke and Mr. Asbury, the superintendents of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, not been admitted to the episcopacy, what would then 
have been the name of our church and the nature of our govern- 
ment? But we may be told, the proposed union failed. Granted. 
But what prevented it ? The subject was proposed to the next Pro- 
testant Episcopal Convention, held in New York, Sept. 1792. And 
had it not been for the death of Mr. Wesley, it is difficult now to 
say what would have been the results. 

About eight years after the above proposition was made to Bish- 
op White, Dr. Coke made a similar one to the Bishop of London, re- 
questing him to ordain (l a given number'* of preachers of the Me- 
thodist connexion in England, as may be seen by referring to his 
letter, published in " Drew's Life of Dr, Coke," page 288. An ex- 
tract of which is here given - 
'* May it please your Lordship, 

I have felt a strong inclination for more than twelve months past, 
to take the liberty of writing to your lordship on a subject which ap- 
pears to me of vast importance ; I mean the necessity of securing 
the great body of Methodists, in connexion with the late Rev. John 
Wesley to the church of England. * ****** A considerable 
number of our body have deviated in this instance," [receiving the 
LordVSupper from their own preachers] " from the established 
church; and I plainly perceive, that this deviation, unless prevented, 
will in time, bring about an universal separation from the establish- 
ment. 

But how can this be prevented ? I am inclined to think that if a 
given number of our leading preachers, proposed by our general con- 
ference, were to be ordained and permitted to travel through our 
connexion, to administer the sacraments to those societies who have 
been thus prejudiced as above ; every difficulty would be removed. 
I have no doubt that the people would be universally satisfied. The 
men of greatest influence in the connexion would, f am sure, unite 
with me ; and every deviation from the church of England would be 
done away. 



81 

In a letter which, a few months past, I took the liberty of writing 
to your lordship, on the business of our societies in Jersey, (island) 
1 observed that for a little time I had been warped from ray attach- 
ment to the church of England, in consequence of my visiting the 
states of America ; but, like a bow too much bent, I have again re- 
turned. But L return with a full conviction that our numerous so- 
cieties in America would have been a regular Presbyterian church, if 
Mr. Wesley and myself had not taken the steps which we judged it 
necessary to adopt.* 

If this point be worthy of your lordship's consideration,! could wish 
that something might be done as soon as convenient ; as some of my 
most intimate friends, to whom i have ventured to disclose this plan, 
are far advanced in years. These are men of long standing, and of 
great influence in our connexion. The plan meets their decided ap- 
probation and cordial wishes for success ; and I have no doubt they 
would lay down their lives with joy, if they could see so happy a 
plan accomplished as I have now proposed. If an interview shall 
be thought necessary, on your lordship's signifying it, I will visit 
London for the purpose next month. 

I did myself the honor, about a year ago, to lay this whole plan 
before the Attorney General, with whom I had the honour of being 
acquainted at Oxford ; and so far as a cursory view of the business 
could enabable him to speak, he greatly approved of it, and some 
months past, encouraged me to lay the whole at the feet of your 
lordship. This I have now done ; and I pray you, my lord, whatev- 
er be your lordship's judgment, to forgive, at all events the liberty 
I have now taken. I have the honor to be, 

My Lord, &c. &c. 

T. COKE." 
Manchester, March 29/fc, 1799. 

As Mr. Wesley no where explicitly declared that by appointing 
the Doctor and Mr. Asbury superintendents, an order of bishops was 
contemplated, or an episcopal form of church government recom- 
mended, neither are the ordinations which he conferred vievved by 
writers among the English Methodist^, who wrote in justification of 
Mr. Wesley's right to ordain, as favouring our title of episcopacy. 

" Mr. Wesley suffered not the ecclesiastical authorities to inter- 
fere v. i-h the internal management of his societies: he would not 
suffer them to be controlled by any parochial clergyman in the three 

*The Doctor refers to church government, not to doctrines contrary to 
those of the church of England, which he held to be Arminian. 2. He in- 
timates that the " numerous societies in America" preferred a presbyterian 
form of government, to an episcopal one. 3. That to prevent the societies 
from becoming a regular Piesbyterian church, he and Mr Wesley took the 
step9 they did- (How far Mr. Wesley was in reality concerned wiJl be seen 
in this work). And 4. from the whole we infer, that the episcopal form of 
church government was not such as the people would have adopted, if it had 
bee-: submitted to their choice; but in consequence of certain measures, it 
was imposed upon them contrary to their inclination and without their con- 
sent. 



32 

kingdoms ; he gave the Lord's supper himself in unconsecrated 
chapels, and employed clergymen to do this: he gave up episcopal or- 
dination as understood by high churchmen ; and in pursuance of his 
belief in the validity of ptesbyterian ordination, he ordained preach- 
ers to give the sacraments ; so that according to strict church no- 
tions, he sanctioned what some would call lay administration. 

The great principle of the validity of presbyterian ordination, 
which is the ordination of the conference, was established by Mr 
Wesley, who himself acted upon this principle by giving ordina- 
tion;* and thus he renounced entirely the notion of bishops and pres- 
byters being distinct orders/' English Methodist Magazine for Ju- 
ly, 1825. page 464, 465. 

'• The ordination or appointment of preachers among us more 
nearly assimilates to the Presbyterian form, than any other. But 
what do the high ecclesiastics say to all this ? They deny that any 
ordination is valid but episcopal ordination, and in this, they assim- 
ilate to the Romish church. We give them their opinion With all its 
benefits," ibid, page 467. 

The preceeding pertinent and lucid remarks, on the ordinations 
conferred by Mr. Wesley, will not be called in question by any one, 
whoxredits what Mr Wesley has said, respecting the parity of bish- 
ops and presbyters ; nor will they be contradicted by any who is ac- 
quainted with primitive ecclesiastical usage. And, with this view 
of the subject, coincide the opinions of the great body of the minis- 
ters and members of our church. These remarks were drawn up, 
we believe, by the book committee of the British connexion, and may 
be considered as an expression of the opinion of the British confer- 
ence. Besides, they were republished by our book agents, as con- 
veying correct information for our members ; and yet, notwithstand- 
ing all this, a contrary statement coming from our book agents, has 
been published in one of the most popular works in this country. A 
work which is highly and deservedly appreciated by the different 
religious denominations of Protestant Christians; we mean Buck's- 
Theological Dictionary. In the last edition of this work, published 
in 1825, by Mr. VV\ Woodward of Philadelphia, there is an " Ap- 
pendix, being an account of the M thodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States; for which the editor of this complete edition of Buck's 
Dictionary is indebted to Messrs. N. Sings and J. Emory, publish-. 
•ers for the Methodist Episcopal Church." In the account furnish- 

*At the conference of 1785, says Mr. Miles, in his History of the Method- 
ists, page 163, My Wesley " set apart three of our well tried preachers, John 
Pawso'n, Thomas Hanby, and Joseph Taylor, to minister in Scotland- He 
also recommended to the Scotch Methodists the use of the Abridged Com- 
mon Prayer. This latter- they declined ; the former they were thankfulfor." 

Also, at the conference of 1787 Mr. Wesley '' set apart for the sacred of- 
fice by the imposition of his hands and prayer, Messrs Alexander Mather, 
Thomas Rankin and Henry Moore, without sending them out of England ; 
stronglv advising- them at the same time, that according to his example, they 
thould continue\mited to the established church, so far as the blessed work 
in which they were engaged would permit. The former of these brethren 
Mr. Mather, he ordained a bishop or superintendent." ' page 175. 



33 

ed by these gentlemen, is the following sentence. H As fo the gov* 
ernment, the title sufficiently ascertains its distinctive character, it 
being in fact and name episcopal. Three orders of ministers are 
recognized, and the duties peculiar to each are clearly defined." 
<f Three orders of ministers !" What a pity we have not been told 
what these lt three orders" are. One of these gentlemen (Mr. N. 
Bangs) has published a b>ok entitled " A Vindication of Methodist 
Episcopacy," in which, after treating of the order cf deacons, he has 
" demonstrated" the identity of presbyters and bishops ; and to 
make out the third order, he says, a Methodist bishop " very much re* 
sembles a primitive evangelist !"* Whether this is the " third or- 
der" which is here alluded to, or not, we cannot say. But waiving 
this, we may be permitted to ask, who authorised these Rev. gentle- 
men to furnish the editor of Buck's Dictionary, with such an impos* 
ing account of the Methodist episcopal church? And if we and 
the public are obliged to receive their statement of " three orders" 
as a •' fact," because they have said so ? We believe no man, nor 
body of men, except the general conference, is competent to pro- 
nounce judgment in this matter for the church : and even if the gen- 
eral conference had made the assertion, and had not supported it by 
better proof than we have yet seen, we would continue to believe 
that our "episcopal government" has nothing of episcopacy in it, 
as understood by episcopalians, but the u name." 

In opposition to the doctrine of " three orders," so pompously laid 
down by the' 4 publishers for the Methodist episcopal church," we 
shall present our readers with an extract of a letter, from one of 
those old preachers who was a member of the general conference of 
i784and who is still in the itinerant connexion, received in answer to 
our letter, marked No. 2 in the Appendix. Speaking of Mr. Wesley's 
appointing Dr Coke a superintendent, he says (i but that he did not 
consider it to be & third order 9 is evident from his own declaration 
of his full belief that bishops and presbyters were the same order in 
the primitive church, and had the same right to ordain, He could 
not, thereforp, give any counsel or order to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, or 
any person to ordain a third order of ministers in our church, that 
is to say, an order <>f bishops distinct from, and superior to, an order 
of presbyters. There was therefoe, I am bold to say, no such letter 
or paper in existence as you enquire for." Here, then, is the opin- 
ion of one who was a member of the conference when the church was 
organized, who does not" recognise three orders of ministers ;" and 
farther argues, that Mr. W. himself did not recognise three orders be- 
cause he declared his belief in the identity of bishops and presbyters. 

Nor is this venerable brother singular in his opinion, respecting 
two orders only. For, whatever pains may have been taken, to im- 
press th^ public mind with the belief, that our church recognises 
three orders, it must be evident, that the conference of 1789 did not 
recognise three ; or if they did, they acted a most inconsistent part, 
by placing Mr. Wesley's name on their minutes, as a bishop. The 
first question on those minutes is as follows : 

* The same doctrine seems to have been advanced in the Methodist Ma- 
gazine for Jan. and Feb. of the present year, and perhaps* bv the same hand- 

,3 



34 

il Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the 
Methodist church in Europe and America ? 

Ans. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury. 
By this answer, Mr. Wesley is announced as one of the bishops of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church. But everybody who knows any 
thing of the matter, knows that Mr. Wesley was no m»re than a 
presbyter of the church of Ergiand. The conference having assert- 
ed the identity of their offices respectively, it follows of course, that 
if Mr. Wesley was not a bishop, neither were the other two; and 
thai the episcopal office, in the Methodist episcopal church, is fill- 
ed by mere presbyters. Or, in other words, that in our church, there 
are not " three orders," or an order of bishops distinct from and su- 
perior to an order of presbyters. But we cannot dismiss this sub- 
ject without making some further remarks ; for considerations 
here present themselves which emphatically claim attention. In 
the year 1787, two years before the date of the minutes, of which 
the above question and answer is a part, Mr. Wesley's name had 
been left off the American minutes. In the interim, he had written 
the letter printed in u Moore's Life of Wesley," in which this great 
and good man had said to Mr. Asbury, 4 ' men may call me afool or 
a knave, a. rascal, or scoundrel, and I am content, but they shall 
nev r by my consent call me a bishop." And yet, after it was known 
that the very term was so extremely offensive to him, his name was 
fixed at the head of the American minutes as one of their bishops ! 
Nor was this all. The conference had declared themselves rt inde- 
pendent" of Mr. Wesley, because, as we have been told, they con- 
sidered it improper in him, to attempt to exercise any authority, by 
appointing a superintendent over the preachers on this side the At- 
lantic; and yet, the conference not only entered him a bishop on their 
minutes for the American Methodists, in opposition to his most pos. 
itive disapprobation of the term,but they entered him a bishop for the 
Methodist Church in Europe ! These, it will be allowed, are strange 
acts; and, although some may feel themselves unable fully to un. 
derstand them, yet we are very unwilling to attempt an explanation. 

Had Mr. Wesley, however, been misunderstood as to his design 
in recommending the Liturgy, and appointing Dr. Coke a super- 
intendent, or had the conference reasoned differently upon these 
subjects, from what we have done, there was no possibility of mis- 
taking him in the following letter which he wrote to Mr. Asbury in 
little more than three years after the episcopal mode of government 
went into operation. See Moore's Life of Wesley, vol. 2, p. 285. 

fa London, Sept 20th 1788. 

K There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation where- 
in you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I stand to 
all the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American Me- 
thodists ; I am, under God, the father of the whole family. There- 
fore, I, naturally care for you all, in a manner no other person can 
do. Therefore I in a measure, provide for you all ; for the supplies 
which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide, were it not 
for me — were it not, that I not only permit him to collect, but sup- 
port him in so doing. 



35 

But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the 
Doctor and you differ from me. I study to be little, you study to 
be great, I creep ; you strut along. I found a school, you a college. 
Nay, and call it after your own names ! beware ! Do not seek 
to be something ! Let me be nothing, and Christ be all in all. 

One instance of this your greatness, has given me great concern. 
How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a bishop ? 
I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men may call me a knave, or 
a/oo/, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content ; but they shall ne/er, 
by my consent, call me a bishop ! For my sake, for God's sake, for 
Christ's sake, put a full end to this! Let the Presbyterians do 
what they please, but let the Methodists know their calling better. 

Thus my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart, 
and let this, when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely 
I am your affectionate friend and brother, 

JOHN WESLEY." 

Having in this letter* expressed himself so pointedly against the 
title of bishop, which the Doctor and Mr. Asbury had assumed ; 
it was most assuredly incumbent on them and on the American 
conference, if the latter were made acquainted with all the circunr 
stances of the case, to have done Mr. Wesley justice, by honestly 
stating in their minutes, that he was opposed to the very name of 
bishop, and thus have taken upon themselves all the responsibdities 
of creating an episcopal form of government. This, however, was 
never done. The above letter was suppressed. Its contents were 
never suffered to transpire. But Mr. Wesley was made to speak a 
language, we believe he never spoke. His name was used to give 
a degree of sanction to their measures, which, it was thought would 
disarm resistance, if any were offered ; and by this means was an 
episcopal government established ; the name of the Rev'd. John 
Wesley being offered as a passport to all the contemplated eccle- 
siastical honours. 



SECTION III. 

Among the resolutions entered into at the conference of 1784, 
the preachers made the following solemn declaration — " During 
the life of the Rev'd. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves ready 
in matters belonging to church government, to obey his commands." 
Yet when he expressed a wish that Mr. VY hatcoat should be ap- 
pointed a superintendent with Mr. Asbury, the> con fere nee objected 
to the appointment, and would not receive him. 

* * 1789. South Garolina, Mareh 15th. We reached the city, hav-ng 
rode two hundred miles in about five days and two hours. Here I received 
a bitter pill from one of my greatest friends. " Asbury's Journal, Tol. II. pa. 
45. Query. Could this bitter pill be the above letter ? 



36 

" London, Sept. 6th, 178^. 
Beau Sin : - , 

1 desire that vou would appoint a general conference of all our 
preachers in the United Stntes, to meet at Baltimore, on May the 
fiist, 1787. And that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed 
superintendent with Mr. Francis Asbury. I am, dear sir, your af- 
fectionate friend and brother, 

JOHN WESLEY." 
To the Re v'd. Dr. Coke. 

There is something in the style of this letter, and in the authori- 
ty exercised by Mr. Wesley in expressing f his desire, compared 
xvfab the minutes of conference of 1785, which we do not fully un- 
derstano 1 . Mr. Wesley's Setter is dated Sept. 6th, 1786, and yet 
hs me was left off the minutes of 1785. How is this ? Did he 
k: ;> 1 a< that the connexion which had heretofore existed between him 
ami the American Methodists was dissolved, and his authority dis- 
owned r And did he, notwitnstanding a knowledge of these facts, 
proceed to exercise his authority, as formerly, by desiring that Mr. 
Wh tcoat should be appointed a superintendent ? We cannot think 
so. Indeed, there is a mystery hanging over the whole of the pro- 
ceedings of those times ; if there is not a studied obscurity and eva. 
sion in the records of the church We know it to be a fact that Mr. 
Wesley's name was left out of the mmutes of conference ; and ma- 
ny of our old members are acquainted with this fact as well as our- 
selves. But how many are acquainted with all the circumstances 
of the case ? We presume but very few. We are free to ac- 
knowledge we are not.* And because it is a subject which so few 
understand, we bring it out before our elder brethren, who mav have 
some knowledge of the proceedings of those early times ; that some 
one or other may cast a ray of light upon a transaction which, down 
to the present hour, is enveloped in darkness. This we conceive is 
an act of justice due both to the dead and to the living. In the mean 
time we shall examine this matter according to the best lights we 
have, and if; doing so, shall inquire, First, when was Mr. Weslev's 
name left off the minutes? Secondly. By whom was it done? And 
Thirdly for what reasons ? 

In the minutes of conference for 1785, we have the following ac- 
count of the origin of the Methodist episcopal church. ** As it 
was unanimously agreed at this conference, that circumstances 
made it expedient for us to become a separate body under the de- 

* We had written these remarks, on the omission of Mr. Wesley's name, 
before we could procifc-e the Prayer Books, and the Rev'd- Mr. Morrell's 
pamphlet. Finding", however, that the conclusions, which we had previ- 
ously argue c out, were established by these documents, we determined, 
rather than alt* r our manuscript, to let what we had written stand, and insert 
those documents, in such places as might best suit This circumstance will 
account for the apparent want of connexion in some parts of our arrange- 
ment ; an;l wdl serve to explain, why we anticipated a subject which is more 
fully treated elsewhere. 



37 

nomination of the Methodist episcopal church, it is necessary that 
we shouid here assign some reasons for so doing. 

The following extract of a letter from the Rev'd. Mr. John Wesley, 
will afford as good an explanation as can be given of this subject." 

Then follows the letter which we need not insert here, as it was 
inserted at page 12 of this essay, and the account is closed in the 
following manner: 

rf Therefore at this conference, we formed ourselves into an inde- 
pendent church ; and following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, 
who recommended the episcopal mode ot church government, we 
thought it best to become an episcopal church, making the episcopal 
office elective, and the elected superintendent or bishop, amenable 
to the body of ministers and preachers " 

Respecting this account, we have one or two inquiries to make. 1. 
Was it actually drawn up at toe conference of 1784 ; and if «o, Dy 
whom was it done, or was it written some time, perhaps year*, af- 
terwards ? Standing where it does, and without a dare, it is certain- 
ly calculated to make an impression on the reader's mmd, that it 
was drawn up at that very conference ; and such has always been 
our view of the subject, until very lately. Yet we think, upon a 
close inspection of the document itself, it will be found to afford 
prima facie evidence, that it was not written then, but some titti§ 
afterwards. Hence the uniform use of the past tense ;*' circum- 
stances made^ " we formed ourselves" we •* thought i< best," &c. 
all evidently proving that it was not written at that conference. 2, 
On the supposition, that it was drawn up, just as it is, at the confer- 
ence of 1784, did the conference acknowledge that Mr. Wesley had 
any jurisdiction over them or not ? If they did, why is his name 
left out of the minutes- and thereby his authority disowned ? It they 
did not, why did they publish an extract of his letter, as giv- 
ing as good an explanation of the subject as they could give, 
and besides this, declare that they adopted the episcopal form of 
government in compliance with his recommendation ? I here 
seems to be here, something inexplicable, or something unfair; and 
we know not how to account tor it, unless upon the following hypo- 
thesis. That the conference held in Baltimore in Dec. 1784, ac- 
knowledged Mr. Wesley's authority, but for some reasons »r other, 
it was subsequently disowned, That in consequence of the rejec- 
tion of his authority, it became necessary to amend or alter the 
phraseology of the minutes of the conference of 1784, »o as to make 
them quadrate with subsequent proceedings. We are led to this 
conclusion from three considerations. 1. Because it seems strange, 
if not unreasonable, to suppose, that they would give Mr. 
Wesley's name as the only authority for the adoption of the episco- 
pal form of government, and at the very same conference, determine 
to reject him. 2. Because in quoting Mr. Wesley's letter in the 
above " account," that part of it which relates to the Liturgy is omit- 
ted. That there was no resolution passed at that conference to 
suppress that part of his letter we argue from the fact, that the 
Prayer Book, which had been abridged and recommended by Mr, 



38 

Wesley was used by the superintendents and many ot the preach- 
ers, subsequently to the conference of'84: and we cannot believe that 
they would do a thing, the authority for doing which, they had previ- 
ously and formally rejecte . 3. Because we have the testimony of the 
Rev'd. J«^sse Lee to prove that the minutes of conference were aU 
tered. iC In the course of this year (1787) Mr Asbury reprinted the 
ge> eral minutes, but in a different form from what they were be- 
fore. The titlf of this pamphlet was as follows : 

" A Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers and Members 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in American ; considered aud 
approved at a conference held at Baltimore in the state of Mary- 
land, on Monday the 27th day of December 1784. In which the 
Rev'd Thomas Coke L. L. D. and the RevM. Francis Asbury pre- 
sided. Arranged under proper heads, and methodized in a more 
acc» ptable manner." 

"This was the first time that our superintendents ever gave 
themselves the title of bishops* in the minutes. They changed the 
title themselves without the consent of the conference ; and at the 
the next conference they asked the preachers if the word bishop 
might stand in the minutes, seeing that it was a scriptural name, 
and the meaning of the word bishop was the same with that of su- 
perintendent. 

Some of the preachers opposed the alteration and wished to re- 
tain the former title, but a majority of the preachers agreed to let 
the word bishop remain.*' Lee's History of Methodism, page 123. 

Besides the words already noticed, there are other expressions in 
this ''account," which should, by no means, be passed over in si- 
lence ; because, in our opinion, they, also, will go to prove, that this 
account was not drawn up in its present form at the conference of 
1784. And, that every one mav have a full understanding of the 
reasons which influence our judgment, we shall give Mr. Wesley's 
letter to Dr. C«,ke, when he appointed him a Superintendent ; or as 
it has been sometimes called, his letter of ordination. This is a 
very important document, and it is a matter of great surprise, that 
this letter was not published in the minutes of conference with Mr. 
Wesley's letter " to Dr.Coke,Mr. Asbury and the brethren in North 
America " Why it has not been suffered to see the light, either in 
those minutes, or in the book of discipline, we will not say. But, 
although it has no place in our official records, Mr. Drew, in his 
life of Dr. Coke vouches for its authenticity in the following words. 
ft The following is a faithful copy, transcribed from the original, in 
Mr. Wesley' 's own hand writing, preserved among the papers of the 
late Dr. C ke. 

" To all to whom these presents shall come : John Wesley, late 
fellow of Lincoln College, in Oxford,presbyterof the Church of Eng- 
land, sendeth greeting : 

Whereas, many of the people in the Southern provinces of North 
America, who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to 

* it is somewhat remarkable that a« soon as Mr. Wesley's name was left 
out of the minutes, the term bishop was introduced into them. 



39 

the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, are greatly 
distressed for want of ministers to administer the sacraments of 
baptism and the Lord's supper, according to the usage of the same 
church ; and whereas there does not appear to be any other way of 
supplying them with ministers. 

Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be providen- 
tially called at this time to set apart some persons for the work of 
the ministry in America, And therefore, under the protection of 
Almighty God, and with a single eye to his glory, I have this day 
set apart as a superintendent, by the imposition of my hands and 
prayers, [being assisted by other ordained ministers,") Thomas Coke, 
doctor of civil law, a presbyter of the Church of England, and a 
man whom I judge to be well qualified for that great work. And I 
do hereby recommend him to all whom it may concern, as a fit per- 
son to preside over the flock of Christ. In testimony whereof, I 
have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second day of September, 
in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred, and eighty- 
four. JOHN WESLEY." 

What are the prominent points in this letter which offer them- 
selves to our consideration ? 1- That a representation had been 
made to Mr. Wesley, that the Methodist societies in America, were 
"greatly distressed for want of ministers to administer the sacra- 
ments of baptism and the Lord's supper, according to the usage of 
the church of England." 2. That application, had been made to 
Mr Wesley " to supply them with ministers" for the purpose of 
administering the same. 3. That those who applied to him express- 
ed a'* desire to continue under his care." This item the reader is 
particularly requested to notice and remember, because it will 
serve to explain subsequent proceedings, and ^ will stand as a 
justification of Mr. Wesley's conduct. And 4th. They assured him 
that the societies here would tg still adhere to the doctrines and dis- 
cipline of the church of Englani." Such were the representations, 
and such the promises which induced Mr. Wesley to abridge 
the Prayer Book of the Church of England — to ordain ministers for 
the American Methodists — and to appoint Dr Coke his substitute 
to superintend or take care of these u destitute sheep in the wilder- 
ness." 

In this situation, matters stood at the opening of the conference 
in 1784. Dr. Coke and his associates had arrived, with letters of 
authority, from Mr. Wesley ; and the long cherished hopes of the 
preachers were about to be realized, by having ordination conferred 
on themselves. That they felt elated with their prospects, is rea- 
sonable to suppose. And, although Mr. Asbury had said, " he 
would not receive any person deputed by Mr, Wesley to take any 
part of the superintendency of the work entrusted to him ; v yet 
neither he, nor the conference refused to receive Dr. Coke in the 
character in which Mr. Wesley had sent him. Indeed, to have shewn 
the least symptom of opposition, either to Mr. Wesley, or to Dr. 
Coke, at this juncture, would have been to prevent the acco?nplish- 



40 

went of the most ardent wishes of Mr. Asbury and the preachers. 
It would have been to dash the cup from their lips when they were 
upon the verv point of tasiing its sweets. No opposition, therefore, 
was made. No resistance was offered. Every thing went on smooth- 
ly ;and whether from prudence or policy, inclination or interest, 
Dr. Coke whs received as a superintendent, and Mr. Wesley's au- 
thority acknowledged and respected But how soon was the face 
of things changed? Scarcely had Mr. Asbury begun to exercise 
the functions of his new office, when Mr. Wesley's authority was re- 
jected and his name left out of the minutes. It is to this transac- 
tion, we rtiink the t^rms " separat" ar.d "independent" in the ac- 
count refer. (i Circumstances made it expedient for us to become 
a separate bo?ly " Separate from whom? Not from the Church 
of England abstractly considered, no more than from the Lutheran 
church, the church of Scotland, or the church of Rome. No con- 
nexion had ever been avowed between the Methodist societies in 
America and any other body of Christians, except Mr. Wesley and 
the English Methodists, as the minutes of conference will prove. 
From whom then did they w separate" ? The plain and obvious an- 
swer is, from Mr. Wesley and the English Methodists. Again it is 
said, " at this conference, we formed ours Ives into an independent 
church." Independent of whom ? Of Mr. Wesley, and in accord- 
ance with this declaration, his name was struck off the minutes of 
conference* 

Our next inquiry is u by whom was it done" ? A candid inquir- 
er after the truth of the. history of this fact would be ready to con, 
elude before he entered upon the search, that there would be no dif- 
ficulty to ascertain all the circumstances of the case by turning to 
the records of the church. But, how would he be surprised to find, 
that the conference have observed the most profound silence upon 
the subject : so much so, that the precise time when, and place where 
it was done, cannot be learnt from the minutes. This is the more 
extraordinary as it is contrary to the usage of Methodism. It is a 
fact well known to every Methodist, that the relation, in which 
every preacher stands whose name has been entered upon the 
minutes as a member of conference, is recorded upon the same. 
Does he, on* account of his age or bodily infirmity, cease to travel 
at large ? He is entered " superanuated," or a supernumerary." 
Does he locate ? He is entered u located." Does he withdraw 
from the connexion ? He is entered ''withdrawn" Is he expelled 
for a crime ? He is entered if expelled." And it he dies in the work, 
his death is announced, and some short account of his life and la- 
bours is placed upon the minutes* But there is no notice whatev- 

*In the minutes of conference for 1792, the year after Mr Wesley's death, 
we have obituary notices of the following preachers. " Thomas Weather- 
ford, an European aged 56, upwards of four years a labourer in the vine- 
yard of the Lord &c." " Peter Massie, who laboured faithfully in the min- 
istry upwards of three years, &c. And, " George Browning txvo years and a 
half in the field of labour &c '' But when Mr. Wesley died, who had la- 
boured upwards of sxxtx xeaus, who v/as the father and founder of Methods 



41 

er taken of Mr. Wesley. And we believe his case is the only one In 
the history of Methodism, where a preacher's name ha J been drop- 
ped without something having been said on the subject, or some 
reason having been assigned tor so doing. That such a remarka- 
ble occurrence should have taken place in the case of Mr. Wesley, 
who was so signally owned of God, by being made his instru- 
ment to raise up the people called Methodists, is surely the most 
extraordinary occurrence in the history of that people. That a 
man like him, who had filled the eye of the religious world for half 
a century, and who was known over Christendom by his labours and 
his writings, should be treated in this manner, is sufficient to awak- 
en suspicion in the breast of every man, that those by whom this 
deed was done, were conscious that their conduct would not bear 
the light. All we know of the atfair is, what Mr. Wesley himself 
tells us, that "Mr. Jisbury quietly sat by. until his friends by com- 
mon consent^ voted my name out of the American minutes?* 

And for what reason was it done? This is our third and last in- 
quiry. And from what we have said already, it will be perceived that 
we do not pretend to be able to give the reasons for this most extra- 
ordinary transaction. All we presume to otter is, the result of our 
investigation ; and if mistaken, we hope we shall be pardoned for 
not learnit g what we had not more ampie means of knowing. We 
infer then, that Mr. Wesley's name was not voted out of the 
A pelican minutes at the conference held in Baltimore in Decem- 
ber, 1784, when the church was organised : 1st, because Dr. Coke 
was present at that conference, and Mr. Wesley never complained 
of the Doctor, nor involved fc>irn in the censure which he pronoun- 
ced on Mr. Asbury and his friends, for doing as they did : 2d, be- 
cause, nearly two years after that period, Mr. Wesley went on to 
exercise the same authority over the American Methodists that he 
always had done, by directing te a general conference of all our 
preachers to meet at Baltimore, on May 1st 1787; and by desiring 
that Mr. Whatcoat should be appointed a superintendent with Mr. 

ism, and who was entered on the minutes as a bishop, at the time of his 
death, not one word is said about him, nor the least notice taken of his 
death. And he is thus treated with this cold neglect, if" not contempt, not- 
withstanding all the pains which had been taken to impress the public mind 
with the belief that it was on account of the respect that was entertained for 
Mm, and because, «« he preferred the episcopal form of government to any 
other," that it was adopted ! ! O ! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in 
the streets of Askelon. 

* One of the preachers to whom we addressed the circular, No. 2, in the 
Appendix, writes thus, "I have shed many tears over your fourth query. 
1 think it was done at a conference held in May, 1787. A vote was taken , 
it is not for me to mention the name of the mover. Dr. Coke was sorrow- 
ful, and I was sorrowful for many months, j'ea, I may say years. The pre- 
text seemed plausible. It was done, and eternity will disclose the moving 
•ause ! !" 

Another of them says, " I was not present at the time when Mr. Wesley's 
name was stricken from our minutes : a number of the elder brethren met 
and did the deed before we juniors, were admitted ! !" And Dr. Coke says, 
"Mr. Wesley received excessive ill usage from a few." 



42 

Asbury;" and 3d, because among the resolutions entered into at that 
conference, was the following. "Q. What can be done in order to the 
future union of the Methodists ? A. During the life of the Rev. 
Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the gospel, rea- 
dy in matters belonging to church government, to obey his com- 
mands. And we do engage, after his death, to do every thing that 
we judge consistent with the cause of religion, in America, and the 
political interests of these States, to preserve and promote our 
union with the Methodists in Europe." 

As for the reasons ; we have heard it asserted by some, that the 
conference thought, if Mr. Wesley's name was retained on the mi- 
nutes, church property would be jeopardised. But we cannot see 
how this could be the case. The revolutionary war was terminat- 
ed before this period; peace followed; and the independence of the 
United States was fully acknowledged by the powers of Europe. 
We do not believe that considerations of this kind influenced those 
by whom this deed was done. For if those reasons had operated 
upon them in the first instance, we think it probable, they would 
have continued to operate on them, and that his name would have 
been kept from being placed on the minutes again, which was not 
the case. 

A second reason is assigned by a writer, from whose work 
we make the following extract. il In 1786, Mr. Asbury com- 
plained of the long Latin word superintendent, and wished it to be 
termed bishop. This was not all, but he proposed to the Rev. Mr. 
Wesley, Mr. T. Mr. W. and Mr. A. as three persons to be ap- 
pointed bishops for the United States t to act under Mr. Asbury. — 
Mr. Wesley's answer was to this purport, and is worthy to be en- 
graven in characters of gold. 'During my life, there shall be no 
Arch-Bishops in the Methodist church ; but send me the man of 
your choice, and I shall have him appointed joint superintendent 
with you.' Mr. Asbury objected to either of these men proposed 
as joint superintendents with him; but desired Mr. Wesley to send 
a man of his choice, and he would receive him/ ? Mr. Wesley ac- 
cordingly appointed xVlr. Whatcoat. 

Another reason for the omission of his name, grows out of the 
authority he exercised, by his letter of September 6th, 1786, in 
which he directed that Mr. Whatcoat might be " appointed to su- 
perintend with Mr. Asbury ; but this was a thing which the Ameri- 
can preachers would not consent to. The Doctor, who was now on 
his second visit to the United States, and was present at the con- 
ference, contended that the preachers were obliged to receive Mr. 
Whatcoat, because they had said in the conference of 1784, during 
the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his 
sons in the gospel, ready in matters belonging to church govern- 
ment, to obey his commands. Apprehensive that it Mr. Whatcoat 
was ordained, Mr. Wesley would recall Mr. Asbury to England," 
(Lee, page 126.) they renounced connexion with him, and voted his 
name out of their minutes. 

The same reason has been assigned in a pamphlet entitled? 
fi Truth Discovered, by Rev. Thomas Morrell, E. M. E. church." 



43 

** But you have struck Mr. Wesley's name from your minutes, in 
1787," said Mr. Hammet, in his controversy with this gentleman. 
* Yes,' said Mr. Morrell, and the reasons were substantial ; and for 
the same causes,we struck it on again, in 1 789. Early in 1787, Mr. 
Wesley intimated a design of removing Mr. Asbury from Ameri- 
ca to Europe, and of sending us a superintendent of his own nomi- 
nation. When the conference assembled, some of the eldest and 
most sensible of the elders observed that Mr. W. had no authority 
to remove Mr. A. much less could he impose a superintendent on 
us without our choice ; for it was written in our constitution, ' that 
no person should be ordained a superintendent over us, without the 
consent of the majority of the conference ; that no such consent had 
been given; that though they highly venerated Mr. Wesley, and were 
willing to receive his advice, and preserve and promote our union 
with him and our Methodist brethren in Europe, as far as the political 
interest of our country would authorise us ; yet, they could not give 
up their rights to any man on earth. And after a number of argu- 
ments to shew the impropriety and impolicy of any man having 
the power to exercise such an uncontrolable and unlimited author- 
ity over us as Mr. Wesley wished to do ; and to prevent him from 
exercising this power in the present case, by virtue of his name 
standing at the head of the minutes, they moved it should be 
struck off. The vote was carried, and his name was omitted. Mr. 
W. complained we were ungrateful ; we felt ourselves grieved that 
the good old man was hurt, and determined to give him every sa- 
tisfaction in our power, consistent with our rights; and in 1789, 
the conference consented his name should be restored on the mi- 
nutes, in testimony of our union with and respect for him ; but in- 
serted in such a manner, as to preclude him from exercising an un- 
constitutionable power over us." pa. 16 17. 

Although it has been asserted in the above extracts, that the con- 
ference disowned Mr. Wesley's authority and omitted his name, 
because he had appointed Mr. Whatcoat a superintendent, yet we 
must beg leave to say we cannot believe that this was the reason. 
That this may have been the ostensible cause, we readily admit. 
And that those who have given it, may have believed it to be the 
sole cause, we will allow. But with all cue deference for the opi- 
nion of those who maybe supposed to have had much better means 
of information respecting this matter, we shall proceed to shew 
the reasons for our dissent. 1st. Mr. Wesley says, " I desire that 
Mr. Whatcoat may be appointed a superintendent." This is Mr. 
Wesley's language; and this is $he sum total of his offence. It 
will be seen then, that he does not *' appoint" Mr. Whatcoat a su- 
perintendent, but simply expresses a' 4 desire^ that he ,; may be ap- 
pointed" one. 2. But allowing that expressing this "desire" is 
tantamount to the act of appointing him, what was there culpable 
in his doing so ? Would not the age, the piety, the wisdom, the 
experience of Mr. Wesley justify him, as the father of the Method- 
ist people, in giving them a word of advice, even if that advice had 
been perfectly gratuitous. And would not a people who were so 



44 

young, and so inexperiencerl, as the Methodists in this country 
were at that time, be tlta; kful for the advice of a person of his 
years and experience, if they had been influenced by a proper spi- 
rit ? 3 But it was not a gratuitous act ; it was not a voluntary 
tender of an opinion, nor an obtrusive officiousness, on the pit of 
Mr. Wesley; but it was an imperious act of duty, growing out of 
the relation in which he stood to them. Let it be distinctly remem- 
bered, that he had been repeatedly solicited to provide ministers 
for the American societies, and that he ha*! been assured that "those 
societies wished to be, under his care " That at the general co> Ter- 
ence of 1784, the preachers renewed these assurances, and declar- 
ed that " during the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge 
ourselves his sons in the gospel, ready in matters belonging to 
church government, to obey his commar-ds." Now if all the for 
mer protestations were made with any other view, than merely to 
to prevail on Mr. Wesley to give them ordination ; or if the reso- 
lution of the conference was passed in good faith, we see not how 
Mr. Wesley could suppose that expressing such a desire as this, 
would bringdown upon him the displeasure of the conference, or 
that from such an appointment, he could anticipate such a dreadful 
punishment as an expulsion from their minutes* Indeed had he 
not manifested his fatherly concern for their welfare, in some way 
or other; had he not given some evidence that their prosperity lay 
ne^rhis heart; had he been totally silent upon those matters that 
vitally affected their interests, then they might, with a greater shew 
of justice, have construed his silence into indifference or negl- ct, 
and declared that a name, which was in no respect, serviceable to 
them, should be struck off' their minutes. 4. But, suppose, for argu- 
ment sake, that Mr. Wesley had committed an offence by making 
the appointment, did his offence merit such treatment ? Was there 
in the eye of justice, no disproportion between the punishment and 
the crime ? Upon this point, we are confident there will be, there 
can be, but one opinion. Had Mr, Wesley, in his zeal to serve the 
American connexion, exceeded their wishes, and encroached upon 
what the conference considered their '■ rights," could not the con- 
ference have remonstrated with him upon the subject ? Could they 
not have communicated their sentiments before they proceeded to 
such extremities? And could they not have informed him that 
they held those rights sacred, and that he must not pretend to en- 
croach upon them; nor think of doing so with impunity ? Yes, 
they could have done this, and a great deal more, if they had been 
inclined to do so, or if a determination had not been previously 
formed to get rid of him and his authority as quick as possible. 

A fourth reason is connected with the following "Address of the 
Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church," to General Washing- 
ton, (See Arminian Magazine, vol. I, page 284-6.) and the treat- 
ment Dr. Coke received on his return to England, from Mr. Wes.- 
]ey and the English conference, in consequence thereof. 

*See No. 3, Appendix. 



45 

** To the President of the United States. 

c< Sir— vVe, the bishops of the Methodist episcopal church-, 
humbly beg leave, in the name of our society, collectively, in these 
United States, to express to you the warm feelings of our hearts, 
an-^ '»ur sincere congratulations, on your appointment to the presi- 
dentship of these States. VVe are conscious from the signal proofs 
you have already given, that you are a friend of mankind ; snd un- 
dr-r this established i iea, place as full a confidence in your wisdom 
and integrity, for the preservation of those civil and religious liber, 
ties which have been transmitted to us by the providence of God, 
and the glorious revolution, as we believe, ought to be reposed in 
man. 

We have received the most grateful satisfaction, from the hum- 
ble and entire dependence on the Great Governor of the universe, 
which you have repeatedly expressed.acknowledjdng him the source 
of every blessing, and particularly of the most excellent constitu- 
tion of these States, winch is at present the admiration of the world, 
and may in future become its great examplar for imitation : and 
hence we enjoy a holy expectation that you will always prove 
a faithful and impartial patron of genuine, vital religion ; the grand 
end af our creation and present probationary existence. And we 
promise you our fervent prayers to the throne of grace, that God 
A mighty m:>y endue you with all the graces and gifts of his Holy 
Spirit, that may enable vou to fill up your important station to his 
glory, the good of his church, the happiness ami prosperity of the 
United States, and the welfare of manki d. 

Signed in behalf of the Methodist episcona 1 church. 

THOMAS COKE. 
FRANCIS ASBURY 

NewTork, May 19tfi, 1789. 

TO WHICH THE PRESIDENT WAS PLEASED TO GIVE THE FOLLOWING AXSWER . 

To the Bishops of the Methodist episcopal churchy in the United 
States of America. 

Gentlemen — I return to you individually, and through you, to 
your society coJlectiveSy, in the United States, my thank», for the 
demonstration of affection., and the expressions of joy offered in 
their behalf, on my late appointment. It shall still be my endeav- 
our to manifest the purity of my inclinations for promoting the hap- 
piness of mankind ; as well as the since/by of my desires to con- 
tribute whatever may be in my power towants the preservation of 
the civil and religious liberties of the American people. In pursu- 
ing this line of conduct, I hope by the assistance of Divine provi- 
dence; not altogether to disappoint the confidence which you have 
been pleased to repose in me. It always affords me satisfaction, 
when I find a concurrence in sentiment and practice between all 
conscientious men in acknowledgments of homage to the Great 
Governor of the universe, and in professions of support to a just, 
civil government. After mentioning that I trust the people of eve- 



46 

ry denomination who demean themselves as good citizens, will 
have occasion to be convinced that I shall always strive to prove a 
faithful and impartial patron of genuine, vital religion ; I must as- 
sure you in particular, that 1 take in the kindest part, the promise 
you make of presenting your prayers at the throne of grace for me, 
and I likewise implore the Divine benedictions on yourselves and 
your religious community. 

G WASHINGTON. 

The first remark we shall make respecting this address, is this : 
That we have no evidence that the title of bishop was publicly as- 
sumed before this time : perhaps it was thought, that the dignified 
character they were about to approach, and the occasion, required 
the superintendents to appear in their best dress, and lake the title 
of " bishops." Secondly. Although this address is dated New 
York, May 1 9th, 1789, we have evidence it was presented to Gene- 
ral Washington, before Doctor Coke left the United States, in 1785. 
ct From the official situation in which he (Dr Coke) was placed by 
Mr- Wesley, on his arrival in America, he thought himself under a 
a moral necessity of joining in an add » ess to General Washington, 
as President of the American congress, in behalf of all the Me- 
thodists in the United States. 

" The various addresses thus presented, soon found their way in- 
to the American newspapers, and in these papers they were brought 
across the Atlantic. Among these addresses there was none that 
attracted the attention of the English Methodists so much, as that 
which bore the signatures of Doctor Coke and Mr. Asbury, as su- 
perintendents of the Methodist Episcopal church in the United 
States of America." Drew's Life of Doctor Coke, London ed. 
page 143, et seq. Thirdly. On his return to England, " a copy of 
this address was introduced as a ground of censure against the 
D >ctor." Fourthly. "Under these circumstances, assome decisive 
steps were necessary to be taken in this critical affair, it was final- 
ly determined that the name of Doctor Coke should be omitted in 
the minutes for the succeeding year." ibid. It was accordingly 
omitted. Fifthly. General Washington's answer to this address is 
published in Drew's Life of Doctor Coke, page 106, and with the 
exception of one word, agrees with the above answer, taken from 
the Arminian Magazine. From all these facts, it is evident that 
the date of tnis address was altered. It was presented before the 
Doctor left the United States, which was on the 3d day of June, 
1785, and yet, when it was published, it is dated. about four years 
after the answer to it was given ; nor does the answer bear a date. 
And this is not all : the original address was presented to u . Ge- 
neral Washington, President of the American Congress" — the 
above is directed rt To the President of the United States." When 
it is a well known fact that General Washington was not Presi- 
dent of the United States,until after the confederation of the States, 
and the adoption of the Constitution., which took place in the 
year 1788. 



47 

By whom these alterations were made, ami for what purposes, it 
is not for us to say. Some may suppose that Mr. Asbury, who 
was coupled with the Doctor in presenting the address, hearing of 
the punishment inflicted upon Dr. Coke, felt alarmed ; and that 
some of his friends apprehending that he also might be called to ac- 
count for it by VIr. Wesley, resolved to prevent it, and as a mea- 
sure of precaution or retaliation, disowned his authority, and voted 
his name out of the American minutes. And having, in this way, 
annihilated Mr. Wesley's authority, it next became necessary to 
change the date &c. of the address, that the assumption of the ti- 
tle of bishop might not appear to be the cause of such an ungrate- 
ful, if not cruel act. It is however worthy of remark, that as soon 
as Mr. Wesley's name was restored to the minutes, this address 
was published ! 

In the midst of such a vast range for conjecture, it would not be 
proper for us to say what were the reasons which led to this result. 
We therefor eexplicitly state,that we do not undertake to determine 
on this point ; nor say by whom this thing was done. All we are 
certain of is, that Mr. Wesley's authority was disowned by leaving 
his name out of the minutes; — the conference receded from the en- 
gagements which they entered into in the year 1784, — and a schism 
was created in the Methodist connexion. What Mr. Wesley 
thought of this treatment from his sons in the gospel, we learn 
from a letter he wrote respecting their proceedings. An extract 
of which is subjoined. 

« London, October 31s*, 1789. 
" J[y Dear Brother: — 

The point which you desire my thoughts upon, is doubtless of 
no common importance. And I will give you my settled thoughts 
concerning it without the least disguise or reserve. Indeed this 
has been always my manner of speaking when I speak of the things 
of God. Itshouid be so now in particular, as these may probably 
be the last words that you will receive from me. 

It pleased God sixty years ago, by me, to awaken and join to- 
gether, a little company of people at Oxford, and a few years after, 
a small company in London, whence they spread throughout the 
land. Some time after, I was much importuned to send some of 
my children to America, to which I cheerfully consented. God 
prospered their labours: but they and their children still esteemed 
themselves one family; no otherwise divided, than as Methodists 
on one sioe of the Thames are divided from the other. 1 was, 
therefore, a little surprised when I received some letters from Mr, 
Asbury, affirming, that no person in Europe knew how to direct 
those in America. Soon after, he flatly refused to receive Mr. 
Whatcoat in the character I sent him. 

He told George Shadford, 'Mr. Wesley and I are like Ceesar 
and Pompey — he will bear no equal, and I will bear no superior.' 
And accordingly he quietly sat by, until his friends, by common 
consent, voted my name out of the American minutes. This com- 
pleted the matter and shewed he had no connexion with me." 



48 

SECTION IV. 

Hitherto we have directed our attention to what we suppose 
was the fact, that Mr. Wesley believed the identity of bishops and 
presbyters; and that he did not intend by appointing Dr. Colo' a 
superintendent, to create a third order, or institute for the socie- 
ties an episcopal form of church government. And, in contempla- 
tion of this fact, we have offered such arguments and adduced 
such proofs only, as were calculated, in our opinion, to establish 
that point. But, if we turn our attention to the view which is en- 
tertained by those brethren, who insist on the admission of a third 
order of ministers in the Methodist episcopal church, it will afford 
some entertainment to the reader to see the different points of 
light, in which this officer is viewed, and the various sources from 
whence he is said to have derived his authority. 

To begin with Mr. Wesley. He had been convinced, he tells 
us, by reading *' Lord King's Account of the Primitive Church, 
that bishops and presbyters are the same order, and consequently 
have the same right to ordain." Therefore, in the letter of ap- 
pointment which he gave Dr. Coke, when he set him apart for a 
special work, he styles him simply, a superintendent. Lest, how- 
ever, the Doctor or any othei person, should mistake his design in 
laying hands on him, and lest this act, indicative of transferring 
his superintending care, should be misconstrued or magnified into 
the making of a bishop or the creating of a third order, * Mr. 
Wesley enjoined the Doctor and his associates in the most solemn 
manner, that the title of bishop should not be taken." Moore's 
life of Wesley, vol. 2, page 279. This being the case, it is surely 
not unreasonable to suppose, that Mr. Wesley explained to the 
Doctor, the nature of the duties he was selected to perform, and 
the extent of the authority with which he was invested : and it i3 
far more likely that this was done, and the above prohibition im- 
posed at the time the Doctor was appointed, than that it was de- 
layed to a subsequent period. If this be natural and reasonable, is 
it not likely that this "solemn injunction*' was communicated to 
Mr. Asbury also? We think it was. For surely, it cannot be 
supposed, that Mr. Wesley would have written in such a style 
and have used such remarkably strong and severe terms, to Mr. 
Asbury, as he does in his letter of September 20th, 1788, if he had 
not seen that all his previous. 4 * injunctions" and remonstrances 
hadbeen utterly disregarded. 

As Mr. Wesley was guided in his opinions by Lord Kind's Ac- 
count of the Primitive Church, we here offer a few extracts from 
the works of this learned and impartial writer- u A presbyter," 
says he, " is a person in holy orders, having thereby an inherent 
right to perform the whole office of a bishop ; but being possessed 
of no place or parish, nor actually discharging it, without the 
permission and consent of the bishop of a place or parish. But, 
lest this definition should seem obscure, I shall illustrate it by the 
following instance. As a curate hath the same mission and power 



49 

with the minister whose place he supplies ; yet being not the min- 
ister of that place, he cannot perform there any acts of his minis- 
terial function, without leave from the minister thereof; so a 
presbyter had the same order and power with the bishop whom he 
assisted in his cure ; yet being not the bishop or minister of that 
eure, he could not there perform any part of his pastoral office, 
without the permission of the bishop thereof. So that, what was 
rendered bishops, priests and deacons, would be more intelligible 
in our tongue, if we did express it by rectors, vicars and deacons; 
by rectors, understanding the bishops, and by vicars, the presbyters: 
the former being the actual incumbents of a place, and the latter 
curates or assistants, and so different in degree, but yet equal in or- 
der. 

" Now this is what I understand by a presbyter ; for the confir- 
mation of which there are two things to be proved. 

I. That the presbyters were the bishop's curates and assistants, 
and so inferior to them in the actual exercise of their ecclesiasti- 
cal commission. 

II. That, yet notwithstanding, they had the same inherent right 
with the bishops, and so were not of a distinct specific order from 
them. Or more briefly thus : 

1. That the presbyters were different from the bishops ingradii, 
or in degree : but, yet, 2. they were equal to them in ordine, or in 
order." 

In going on to prove those points the writer remarks. " But 
though the presbyters were thus different from the bishops in de- 
gree, yet they were of the very same specific order with them, hav- 
ing the same inherent right to perform those ecclesiastical offices, 
which the bishops did, as will appear from these three arguments. 
1. They discharged all those offices which a bishop did ; for a pres- 
byter, by his ordination, had as ample an inherent right and power 
to discharge all ecclesiastical offices, as any bishop in the world had. 
A bishop preached, baptized and confirmed, so did a presbyter. A 
bishop excommunicated, absolved and ordained, so did a presbyter. 
Whatever a bishop did, the same did a presbyter. The particular 
acts of their office were the same ; the only difference that was be- 
tween them, was in degree ; but this proves there was none at all 
in order. 2. They were called by the same titles and appellations 
as the bishops were. And 3. They are expressly said to be of the 
same order with the bishops. It is expressly said by the ancients, 
that there were but two distinct ecclesiastical orders, viz. bishops 
and deacons, or presbyters and deacons ; and if there were but these 
two, presbyters cannot be distinct from bishops, for then there would 
be three. That there were but two orders, viz- bishops and dea- 
oons is plain from that golden ancient remain of Clement Romanus, 
where he thus writes. In the country and cities where the Jlpos- 
ties preached, they ordained their first converts for bishops cmd 
deacons over those who should believe. Epis. ad Corinth, pa- 54. 
Now, if they ordained but these two, I think no one had ever a conv 
4 - 



50 

mission to add a third, or to split one into two, as must be done, if 
we serrate the order of presbyters from the order of bishops."— 
Lord King pa. 75. 

But some one may inquire, how was a bishop appointed, consti- 
tuted or inducted ? Lord King shall answer this question likewise 
" When a parish or bishopric was vacant through the death of the 
incumbent, all the members of the parish, both clergy and laity met 
tog< 'her in the church, commonly, to choose a fit person for his suc- 
cessor, to whom they might commit the care and government f 
their church." page 46. " When the people had thus elected a 
bishop, they presented him to the neighbouring bishops for their ap- 
probation and consent ; because, without their concurrent assent, 
there could be no bishop legally instituted or confirmed." page 47, 
i( A bishop being thus elected and confirmed, the next thing that 
followed was his ordination or instalment, which was done in his 
own church by the neighbouring bishops ; as Cyprian mentions 
some bishop in his time, who went to a city called Capse to install 
a bishop ; whither when they were come, they took the bishop elect, 
and in the presence of his flock, ordttined or installed him a bishop 
of that church by the imposition of hands." page 49. 

On these extracts we remark, I. If Mr. Wesley was convinced of 
the identity of bishops and presbyters by reading such passages as the 
above ; and yet, with this very book of Lord King in his hand, in- 
tended to create a third order, when he believed that there were 
but two, he has given unquestionable evidence, ipso facto, of the 
want of consistency and his authority should have been rejected 
altogether rather than have been produced for our episcopacy. But 
from the charge of inconsistency we wish to rescue his memory. 
He has given no ground to his greatest enemy to fix upon his char- 
acter so foul a stain. 2. It is worthy of notice, that there is not in 
this quotation a single word about divine right, or apostolical succes- 
sion ; but the rights of bishops are made to rest on ecclesiastical 
usage, and this usage embraced the suffrage of ''the clergy and lai- 
ty." 3- Whatever stress there may be laid on the imposition of 
hands, it is very evident, that this circumstance was not sufficient 
to create a distinct order. Presbyters were installed, or placed 
over a church or congregation by this ceremony, and yet as it re- 
spects order, were no more than presbyters still. 

The next to Mr Wesley is Dr. Coke. [ We shall therefore in- 
troduce him, and hear what he says. " He," Mr, Wesley, " did in- 
deed soUmniy invest me as far as he had a. right so to do, with 
episronal authority." And yet, notwithstanding this assertion, 
Mr Wesley reproves the Doctor in the following language, ''how 
can you, how dare you softer yourself to be called a bishop!" 
W T hether ■ heDoctor understood this investiture to constitute a third 
order ; or whether he understood it to be an appointment for a spe- 
cial work, he does not say. Two things, however, are obvious. 1. 
He ascribes the act of investing him with " episcopal authority" to 
Mr. Wesley. Now, as no stream c-n rise nigher than its fountain, 
and as Mr/Wesley was only a presbyter of the church of England, 



51 

he could not confer what he did not possess. 2. Mr. Wesley's act* 
in the Doctor's own opinion, had its limitations and restrictions, 
for he adds " as far as he had a right so to do." Still, there is no- 
thing about divine right, apostolic authority, or uninterrupted site- 
cession. 

The third writer we shall notice is the Rev. Thomas Morrell, who 
holds the following language in his pamphlet in controversy with 
the Rev. Mr. Hammet. " When Mr. Wesley framed the constitu- 
tion of our church, he ordained Dr. Coke a superintendent of the 
said church : novy observe, Dr. Coke had been before ordained both 
a deacon and elder. Further, Dr. Coke had the orders of Mr. 
Wesley to ordain deacons, elders and a superintendent in Ameri- 
ca ; and in virtue of this direction, he did actually ordain these three 
orders at Baltimore. Once more, in our ordination office inserted in 
the Prayer Book, we have the manner, in which each of these three, 
orders are to be ordained, the questions to be asked, and the reply 
they are each to make, and all this compiled and composed by Mr. 
Wesley himself; and distinct ordination proves a different degree 
of order, if Mr. Wesley's conduct is to be admitted in proof." pa. 39. 

On this extract, we shall remark. 1. That Mr. Morrell carefully 
avoids using the term bishop, although it was introduced into the 
minutes of conference, and we believe into the Book of Discipline, 
long before his pamphlet was written. 2. At the time he wrote his 
book, he had, we presume, no knowledge of the " c solemn injunction 
imposed by Mr. Wesley, on Dr Coke and his associates, that the 
title of bishop should not be taken." Either names alter the nature 
of things, or Mr. Morrell was mistaken in his reasoning: and 
subsequent events prove this to be the case. For Mr. Wesley will 
surely be allowed to be more capable of explaining his own views 
and conduct, than Mr. Morrell was. In his letter of reproof to Mr. 
Asbury, he expresses himself thus : "One instance of this your 
greatness, has given me great concern. H ow can you, how dare you 
suffer yourself to be called a bishop ? I shudder, I start at the very 
thought. Men may call me a knave or a. fool, a rascal, a scoundrel , 
and I am content ; but they shall never, by my consent, call me a 
bishop." 3. Inasmuch as Mr. Asbury, in enumerating his authori- 
ties (see page 54) in support of his episcopal claims, has made no 
reference to Mr. Wesley, nor to the abridged copy of the Prayer 
Book, he could not have supposed, that the Prayer Book and its a- 
bridged form of ordination, furnished evidence that Mr. Wesley in- 
tended to create a third order. 4. Mr. Morrell is the first who has 
unequivocally asserted that there are three orders in our church, 
superintendents, elders and deacons. And he affirms, also, that 
" distinct ordination proves a different order," the assertion 
of Lord King, and we think, we may add Mr. Wesley, to the con- 
trary notwithstanding. 5. For the Methodist societies in Eng- 
land and Scotland, Mr. Wesley ordained ministers ; one of whom 
he styled a superintendent. For the American societies he or~ 
dained ministers, one of whom he styled a superintendent. — 
To the societies in Scotland he sent the Prayer Book^ but 



52 

they refused to accept it ; although they were thankful to him for 
sending them ordained ministers. To the societies in America he 
sent the Prayer Book also. Did he, in the one case intend to cre^ 
ate a" third "order" and establish an independent Methodist epis- 
copal church ? And did he in the other case not intend to create 
a if third order" and establish an independent Methodist episco- 
pal church ? The cases are precisely alike, and Mr. Wesley's in- 
tentions we presume were precisely the same. As he did not in- 
tend to create a third order in the one case, neither did he in the 
other. And as he expected and desired that the societies in Scot- 
land would remain in union with him, so did he expect that the A- 
merican Methodists would remain in union with him also. 

The next in order after the Rev'd. Mr. Morrell, is the Rev'd. 
Wiliam Phoebus This gentleman "wrote an apology for the 
right of ordination in the evangelical church of America, called Me- 
thodists." Not having his pamphlet, we quote from '' Myles's his- 
tory of the Methodists," page 164. " The Methodists, in Ameri- 
ca, have as good a presbyterian ordination as any in the world, (for 
a sufficient number of presbyters have been always present, at the 
time of ordaining, from the day we first began until now.) And 
as good an episcopal ordination as any in the world, while one of 
father Wesley's successors is with her (i. e. with the church) ves- 
ted with apostolic authority, being in a land where merit may rise. 
I exhort my brethren to be courageous, and never to be ashamed of 
our apostle Wesley, and to keep an eye to that succession, and 
know, and let the people know, that God has given power to his 
ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, 
the privileges of the gospel." 

" Speaking of the fact, he says Mr. Wesley did, in the presence 
of a sufficient number of presbyters and brethren, after supplication 
and prayer to the adorable Trinity, set apart and consecrate Tho- 
mas Coke, a presbyter, a man who had embarked in the same good 
cause, and counted his good name among the world, his literary 
qualifications, his ease, his wealth, his all on earth, hut dung and 
dross, that he might win souls to Christ, and be found in his right- 
eousness. Him he ordained his apostle or messenger to us, with 
outlines of advice for us to adopt, as we saw most conducive to the 
general good^recommending to ustlie JYew Testament for our pattern. 

Then with his power, and the fear of God, we assembled at 
the city of Baltimore in the state of Maryland, and received Tho- 
mas Coke, L. L. D. with his testimonials, from the greatest man to 
Us in the world. He proceeded to form the first church that ever 
was organized under a pure republican government, and the first 
that Avas ever formed in this happy part of the world. 

There were branches of different churches in America before, 
but all were formed in Europe, as witness their title, viz. Westmin- 
ster, Scotch, Heidelberg, Church of England, German Church, Mo- 
ravian, &c. &c. 

In the year of our Lord 1785, and in the ninth year of the In- 
dependence of the United States, on the first day of January, we 



53 

thought it not robbery to call our society a church, having in it, and 
of it, several presbyters and a president. Francis Asbury was or- 
dained deacon ; having used the office sometime, was ordained a 
presbyter ; having used that office well, was accounted worthy of 
double honour ; and consecrated prime minister of the Methodist 
episcopal church in America." 

Every one will readily perceive, how the subject swells in gran- 
deur and importance as we get along; and how each consecutive 
writer contributes his part, to make " our blushing honours grow 
thick upon upon us." Commencing with two orders, we soon arriv- 
ed at a third ; and plain John Wesley, the fountain of our episco- 
pal authority is, in a little while, improved into " Father Wesley," 
and then again into out " Apostle Wesley," and some delicate allu- 
sions are made to " succession" and S( apostolic authority." But, 
notwithstanding Dr. Pboebus's piece is bespangled with all these 
pretty fine things, the Rev'd. Mr. Bangs does not seem satisfied 
with it. Not, because too much was said by Dr. Phoebus in favor 
of our episcopacy, which is of that peculiar description that it par- 
takes of a*' presbyterian ordination as good as any in the world ;" 
and £< an episcopal ordination as good as any in the world ;" but be- 
cause he failed to set forth our bishops in their proper character. 
We nest turn to Mr. Bangs. 

K The second officer in the church, in the order of the ministry is 
elder or presbyter, and who is sometimes called bishop. That those 
denominated bishops, elders or presbyters in the apostolical writ- 
ings, were one and the same order of men, we will now endeavour 
to demonstrate." Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy, page 19. 
Again he says " a third order in the church, called evangelists,were 
the immediate successors of the Apostles." page 42. il These evan- 
gelists were, in the apostles' days, an order of ministers superior to 
the elders, and who extended their oversight to the whole church." 
page 27. "And this order of men bore the same relation to the 
primitive church that the bishops of the Methodist episcopal church 
do to their church " page 46. " The primitive church had its itin- 
erating apostles, and superintending evangelists as their aids and 
successors : that we have a grade of ministers in our church, 
which very much resembles them, is a fact, which needs but little 
proof to make it evident. The Methodist bishops are itinerating 
ministers, who travel through the whole work, and are therefore a- 
bie to take an impartial and responsible oversight of the whole 
church, ministers and people. The primitive evangelists ordained 
elders in every city — our itinerating bishops do the same."* page 
49. 

However specious this hypothesis of the Rev'd. Mr. Bangs may 
appear, and however striking the similarity between a primitive 
evangelist and a Methodist bishop may be considered, it is liable 
to several objections. 1. It supposes that the ordinary ministers of 
our church, " very much resemble" the extraordinary ministers of 

*This doctrine has been recently advanced with a great shew of learning*, 
Hebrew andGreek being summoned to its support,in the MethodistMagazine. 



54 

the church of Christ at its establishment ; or rather, are of the same 
order with them. " The extraordinary teachers, whom Christ em- 
ployed to lay the foundation of his kingdom, were the twelve apos- 
tles, and the seventy disciples. To these, the Evangelists are to 
be added, by which title those were distinguished, whom the apos- 
tles sent to instruct the nations." Wesley's church history, vol 1, 
page 55. 2d. It affirms that the evangelists were " succes- 
sors" of the apostles, when nothing can be clearer, we think, than 
that they were contemporary with them. As their powers, like 
those of the apostles were extraordinary, their office too was tem- 
porary. Consequently they could be no precedent for an order of 
ministers in our church. 3. It is contrary to matter of fact record- 
ed in scripture history, by which we are authorised to say that there 
were but two orders "of ministers in the primitive church, deacons, 
and presbyters or bishops. 4. Because it asserts that the evangel- 
ists were a distinct order from deacons and presbyters, and supe- 
rior to both ; whereas Philip the evangelist was one of the seven 
deacons. Acts XXI. ch. ver. 8. " The evangelists aad teachers, who 
are often spoken of in the Acts and epistles, were inferior both to 
the apostles and prophets, and consequently were of the lowest or- 
der." Potter, page 210. 5. Because it affirms that the evangelists 
were " continually moving from place to place," having no charge 
of any one particular congregation, but " extending their oversight 
to the whole church." Whereas, Philip the evangelist, resided in 
Cesarea with his family. Compare Acts XXI. ch. 8 ver. with Acts 
VIII. ch.40 ver. See, also, Dr. A. Clarke's note on the latter text. 
And we have no information that Philip extended his " oversighf'to 
any one particular congregation, much less " to the whole church." 
6. Because it confounds the orders,\>y supposing that when a min- 
ister itinerated he was an evangelist, and was of the third order s 
as in the case of Timothy and Titus ; but when the same person 
was placed in charge of anyone particular church or congregation, 
as Timothy was placed at Ephesus s and Titus left at Crete, then he 
was only of the second order, being only a presbyter or bishop. 7. 
Because it makes the difference in order to consist in itinerating, a 
thing which neither Mr. Bangs, nor any one else can prove. 

After noticing the Rev'd. Mr. Bangs's theory, we shall introduce 
the Rev'd. Mr. Asbury. In his journals vol. 3. page 168, he writes 
thus " Wednesday 22 (May 1805). We came away to the widow 
Sherwood's where I preached : I had a little time to read. In this 
state the subjects of succession, rebaptizing, are much agitated. I 
will tell the world what I rest my authority upon. 1. Divine au- 
thority. 2. Seniority in America. 3. The election of the general 
conference. 4. My ordination by Thomas Coke, William Philip 
Otterbine, German Presbyterian minister, Richard Whatcoat, and 
Thomas Vasey. 5. Because the signs of an apostle have been seen 
in me." Great as our veneration for the memory of this good man 
is, and highly as we esteemed him in his life time, we cannot suffer 
ourselves to pass over this extract without making a few observa- 
tions upon it 1. We think it quite unnecessary to enter into any ar- 



gument to prove, that by the phrase " my authority," Mr. Asbury 
did not mean an authority to preach God's word, but an authority 
to govern and act as a bishop. He is the first, then, who has ascribed 
episcopal power to "divine authority," and we are at a loss to 
know, in what way he conceived he became possessed of it. As ne 
has neglected to inform us respecting this matter, and has given us 
neither chapter nor verse for what he says, we shall let it rest un- 
til some of the friends of the episcopacy shall supply this omission, 
and make us acquainted with the time, and place, and circumstan- 
ces of his receiving this "divine" warrant. 2. "Seniority" alone 
bestows no ministerial qualification, nor have the general confer- 
ences acted on this principle in the choice of our bishops, nor the 
annual conferences in the choice of their representatives. And even 
if" seniority" would justify a claim to the office, others were enti- 
tled to it before him. Philip Embury and other Ideal preachers 
laboured in the word and doctrine and had erected a meeting house 
in the city of New York before Mr. Asbury came to America. 3. 
Had the laity been united with the general conference in their elec- 
tion, it would have corresponded with Lord King's account of the 
induction of a primitive bishop ; but as the laity had no share in the 
election, the general conference had no right to act in this matter 
for the church. 4. It seems somewhat remarkable, tnat Mr. Wea- 
lev's name should have been omitted in this catalogue ; and that 
Mr. Asbury should seem inclined to acknowledge every other 
source from whence he could he supposed to derive his episcopal 
authority, but Mr. Wesley. Leaving Mr. Otterbine's name out of 
our remaks, as he did not belong to our church, two of the remain- 
ing three appear to be doubtful of the validity ot their own ordina- 
tion, and consequently of their right to ordain others. Dv. Coke's 
proposals to Bishop White of Philadelphia shall serve as proof of 
the first ; and if we are correct in decyphering the name by the in- 
itials, we have proof in Mr. Asbury's Journals, that Thomas 
Vasey was as much dissatisfied, on this point, if not more so, than 
Dr. Coke himself. 

" Pennsylvania—Wednesday 22, (June 1787.) We bad a warm 
ride through a fertile pleasant country to Trenton ; and on Thurs- 
day 28th to Philadelphia. Here 1 tound T. V." (Thomas Yasey) 
%i had scattered fire brands and thrown dirt to bespatter us." vol.2. 
page If. And agaiu on the same page, he says "1 find T. V." 
(Thomas Vasey) " has misrepresented us as having cast off" Mr. 
Wesley, making this a plea for his re-ordinaiionP 

6. Passing over what we deem a logical maccurary, such a one as 
would put the effect for the cause,or assign the fruit ot the tree as the 
cause of its productiveness, we shall notice what he says in his fifth 
reason, respecting " the signs of an apostle v\ hich have been seen in 
me." These signs were such as he possessed in common with other 
gospel ministers, or they were not. If they were, how could he ap- 
propriate to himself exclusively, vhat was common to all ? If they 
were not, what were those signs of an Apostle to which he laid 
claim, and which were to be found in him alone ? He pretended 



56 

to no supernatural visions nor revelations. He never professed 
to be able to cure the sick or raise the dead- We believe he never 
wrought any miracles as the Apostles did, nor made any pretensions 
to be able to work them. That he was a great, wise, good, and use- 
ful minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, having few to equal him, we 
feel a pleasure in declaring: but that he possessed any one of those 
extraordinary powers which were conferred on the apostles,or that 
he was called of God to do the special work which the Apostles were 
appointed to perform, we hope it will be considered no detraction 
from his well earned reputation, to deny. 

Next to Mr. Asbury, comes the Rev'd. William M'Kendtee, the 
senior bishop of the Methodist episcopal church. On the authori- 
ty of "an old member of the Philadelphia conference," we give the 
following extract from bishop M'Kendree's address laid before the 
Philadelphia conference in May, 1822. " I believe the resolutions 
passed at the last general conference, authorising the respective 
annual conferences to elect the presiding elders, are an infringe- 
ment on the constitution of the Methodist episcopal church. One 
of many reasons in support of this opinion is as follows : It is the 
duty of a bishop to travel through the work at large ; to oversee the 
spiritual and temporal concerns of the church. But to oversee is to 
overrule." Wesleyan Repository, vol. 2. page 3S5. 

This extract is short, but it, is pithy. Tt is small in size, but it is 
lofty in significance. Although much might be said on it, we shall 
make two remarks only. 1 It seems to intimate that a bishop's 
judgment is more correct and more to be relied on than the judg- 
ment of the majority of the general conference. This, with some, 
may be a thing of course ; for it has been said " A saint in crape is 
twice a saint in lawn." This superior judgment is not a full and 
explicit avowal of infallibility, but it is an approximation to it. It 
places the decision of the senior bishop, above the general confer- 
ence ; as some Romish writers make the Pope's decision to be great- 
er than that of a general council. 2. In the extract from Mr. M c - 
Kendree's predecessor, we had " divine authority" for the exercise 
of episcopal power. Here we have that power, by the same autho- 
rity we presume, extending its gracious and superintending care, 
not only to to the spiritual concerns of the church, but overruling 
its temporal matters, also. 

Finally, we shall make a passing remark on the " circular" of the 
general conference of 1824, which bears the signatures of the three 
bishops, William M'Kendree, Enoch George, and Robert R. Rob- 
erts. This document, which we wish our readers to consider as the 
principal exciting cause of this investigation, exceeds all that went 
before, and may in truth be said to cap the climax ;* for we do not 

♦In a letter which we wrote to bishop George, two years ago, we expressed 
Ourselves respecting this " Circular" in the following manner. " A paper 
drawn up by a committee of twelve preachers, discussed and approved by 
at least one hundred ministers in general conference, and bearing the sig- 
nature of three bishops. In this document there are no more than two sub- 
jects noticed, Monet and Poweh, or the salaries of the preachers, and the 



57 

know how it is possible to go beyond the pretensions therein set 
forth. Let the " world" know then, that this document purports 
to be a reply to the. numerous petitions which werKsent from the 
local ministers and laymen of the church, praying for * representa* 
tion in the general conference. In these petitions, ti»e matters 
prayed for were asserted to be the il unalienable rights" otthe peti- 
tioners. To which these three bishops reply in behalf of \he said 
general conference, u pardon us if we know no such rights — if 
we comprehend no such PRIVILEGES." Here, then, is the exclu- 
sive right of travelling preachers to legislate for the church, assert- 
ed : and local ministers and laymen, who are denied a participa- 
tion in legislation, are reduced, in this respect, to the condition of 
slaves. We have often said to our friends, in remarking upon this 
declaration, that we wonder these three brethren were not ashamed 
to sign and send forth such a circular, to freemen in these United 
States, And as we never have allowed ourselves, since the day we 
knew the Lord, to make any observations respecting a person* be- 
hind his back, which we would be unwilling to make to that same 
person, to his face ; we now say of these* three brethren, we wonder 
they were not ashamed ; and the only way we can account for their 
conduct in this instance, is this,that a bishops spirit came upon them, 
and we have no where read, in ecclesiastical history, that bishops 
were ever very backward to assert their pretensions. 

To recapitulate the leading points : every one will perceive with 
what rapidity we have advanced in our career of ambition and glo- 
ry ; and with what boldness the pretensions of our bishops have 
been set forth by themselves or their advocates. In forty years we 
have outstript Rome herself, in her march to grandeur ; and it would 
seem, that what some writers have affirmed respecting the Western 
hemisphere, namely, that every thing in America is upon a larger 
and grander scale, and that the natural productions sooner arrive 
at maturity here, than on the Eastern contii\ent, is to be verified in 
our church matters also. We began our Church establishment a 
few years ago, and rested the foot of our ecclesiastical ladder upon 
Mr. W r esley's authority ; but his authority was soon rejected* The 
first step of our ladder is the identity of bishops and presbyters, or 
two orders. The second, ** episcopal authority" with limitations 
and restrictions. The third, three distinct orders. The fourth, a 

right of the itinerant ministry to legislate for the church. And so intent was 
the general conference upon establishing this right, and so perfectly ab- 
sorbed were their minds with this subject, that the name of God, of Jesus 
Christ* or the Holy Ghost, is not named in the circular- In it, there is no 
allusion to the doctrines of the fall, nor to the recovery of man by the death 
of Christ. The terms repentance, faith or holiness are not mentioned in 
it from beginning to end. There is not a single promise referred to as a 
motive to duty, or as an encouragement to perseverance ; nor the slightest 
reference to heaven as the reward of the righteous. In it will be found no 
expression of thanksgiving to the great Head of the Church for past mer- 
cies ; nor a word of prayer for future favors" ! ! 

* The invidious comparison made between the " love of Christ" and the 
u love of authority" cannot invalidate the above assertion. 



' . . ■ 58 

^ presbyterian or«"mation, and an episcopal ordination as good as 
any in the worM " The fifth, Methodist '/.-hops," very much re- 
semble" primitive evangelists. The sixth, " divine authority" for 
episcopal pwer. The seventh, a right " to overrule the spiritual 
and temporal concerns of the church." The eighth, " divine right" 
to legislate for the church to the exclusion of local preachers and 
laymen. By such steps have we advanced to the ground we now 
occupy ; and time aione can develope what other steps may be added 
in the progress of the work. We have no idea, however, that the 
present bishops have found a stopping place ; nor that they or their 
successors will voluntarily relinquish one particicle of their autho- 
rity. Indeed, we are rather inclined to think, they will *iill con- 
tinue their exertions to ascend. And, that what was said of the 
bishops of another church, may be said by the future historian re- 
specting them. " It is very remarkable that of the one hundred 
and fourteen Popes between Boniface III. who laid the foundation 
of the papal grandeur, and Gregory VII. who raised it to the highest 
pitch, not one ever lost an inch of ground his predecessor had gain- 
ed." Bower's history of the Popes. Preface. 

Before we dismiss this part of our subject, we shall anticipate an 
objection that may possibly be made against us, and answer it — 
Some one may say, that by arguing against Methodist bishops being 
a third order, different from presbyters and superior to them, we are 
arguing against the validity of our own ordination ; and the ordi- 
nation among the Methodists. Not so, for according to our views 
of the nature and effect ofan ordination, if the authority of the 
bishops, so called,in theMethodist episcopal church, was totally re- 
nounced, the validity of the ordination of all our ordained ministers 
would remain unimpaired ; or, otherwise it must follow as an unde- 
niable consequence, that there was no valid ordination in the prim- 
itive church, when there were but two orders of ministers. If the 
objection has any weight in the one case, it must have equal weight 
in the other ; seeing there were but two orders in the church fur up- 
wards of three hundred years after Christ. That there were but 
two, viz. bishops and deacons, or presbyters and deacons, is a fact 
which we think is clearly established by ecclesiastical writers. And, 
although we do not know that this thing requires any further proof, 
we shall add a few more authorities to those which we have already 
given. 

1. "The rulers of the church were called either presbyters or 
bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly 
applied to the same order of men." Mosheim, vol. 1. p. 99. 

2. u It is certain the words, bishops and presbyters, are used pro- 
miscuously in the New Testament. Bishop Hoadly and Dr. Ham- 
mond both of them allow this : and it is Dr. Hammond's opinion, 
that there were only presbyters and deacons in each church at first." 
Doddridge's Lectures, vol. 2. pa. 339, 

3. u As for Iranseus, I meet with no passage in him to prove that 
bishops and presbyters were distinct." Ibid. vol. 2. pa. 846. 

4. <$ Polycarp exhorts the Christians atPhillippi to be subject to 
the presbyters and deacons ; but, says not one word of any bishop 



g> 



59 

beingthen at Phillippi ; nor gives any direction about choosing one.'* 
Ibid. pa. 347. 

5 " I believe, upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will 
prove true,that Jerome, Austin, Ambrose, Siduiius, Prima&tus, Chry- 
sostom 9 Theodoret, Theophylact, were all of Arius's judgment as to 
the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyter* in the 
primitive church." Stillingfleet's Iren. page. 276. 

6 ts The Greek and Latin fathers, do, with one consent, declare 
the Apostle here calls their presbyters their bishops. So Chrysos- 
toro, Theodoret, GEcuminius, Theophylact, St. Jerome, Pseud- Am. 
brosius and Primastus." Whitby on Phill. 1 ch. 1 verse. 

7. " Now, as these elders are called bishops in verse 28, we may 
take it for granted, that they were the same order : or, rather, that 
these superintendents of the church were indifferently called either 
presbyters or bishops. " Dr. A. Clarke, on Acts 20. ch. 17. verse. 
See also verse 28. 

8. " Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me 
many years ago, that bishops and presbyters are the same order. 55 
Rev'd. John Wesley. 

9. " John Wickliffe, the morning star of the reformation, who 
flourished about one hundred and thirty years before the reforma- 
tion of Luther, is very positive with regard to the identity of the 
order of bishops and priests in the apostolic age. iC One thing 1 boldly 
assert, that in the primitive church, or in the time of the apostle 
Paul, two orders of clergy were thought sufficient, viz. priest and 
deacon ; and 1 do also say, that in the time of Paul, a priest and a 
bishop were one and the same ; for in those times the distinct orders 
of Pope, cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, 
officials, and deans, were not invented.' Neal's His. of the Puritans, 
vol. 1. pa 51. 

" The first reformers believed there were but two orders in holy 
scripture, viz. bishops and deacons ; and consequently that bishops 
and priests were but different ranks or degrees of tlie same order.' 1 
Ibid, pa. 123. 

(i Archbishop Usher says, "I have ever declared my opinion to 
be, that episcopus et presbyter gradu t ant urn differ uni, non ordine, 
(a bishop and presbyter differ only in degree, not in order) and con- 
sequently, that in places where bishops cannot be had, the ordina- 
tion by presbyters stands valid." " This was the constant sense of 
our first reformers, Cranmer, Pilkington, Jewel, Grindal, Whitgift, 
&c and even of Bancroft himself ; for when Dr. Andrews, bishop 
ot Ely, moved that the Scots bishops elect might first be ordained 
presbyters, in the year 1610, Bancroft replied there was no need of 
it, since ordination by presbyters ivas valid." Ibid vol. 2. pa. 412. 

Other names might be added to these authorities, but it is suppos- 
ed these will suffice to establish the identity of bishops and presby- 
ters; and the right of presbyters to ordain. 

And, if it could be proved that bishops are a different order from 
presbyters and superior to them, what advantage would be gained 
thereby? We have already shewn the opinions of episcopalians 



60 

upon this subject. Are the Methodists prepared to subscribe to 
them ? Do they think, '* there is no valid christian ministry,*' with- 
out ordination by a person of the third order ? Will they affirm, 
** no one has a right to execute the ministerial office, without having 
previously received a divine commission ; and the exclusive right 
of granting this commission is vested in the bishops as successors 
of the apostles." ? Will they publish to the world u no bishop, 
no church." ? Can they plead for this third order, without con- 
necting with it, the doctines set forth in the above quotations, and 
many more? We think not. For, as the person who draws the 
first link of a chain necessarily drags all the other links after 
it; so does the advocate of a distinct order of bishops, supetior 
to presbyters, necessarily involve in his plea, all the above conse- 
quences. Who, then, renders Methodism the greater service, 
we who plead for the parity of presbyters and bishops, and the con- 
sequent right of presbyters to ordain, or those who insist on the 
superiority of bishops to the order of presbyters, and pompously 
talk about "divine authority," and '' apostolic succession"? Away 
with such childish things. The cause of holiness is not promoted 
by them. The success of the gospel does not depend upon them. Nor 
is any, nor all of these high sounding words of vanity the passport 
to those everlasting joys which are at God's right hand. 

Still it may be a question with some, can there be an ordination 
without the imposition of the hands of a bishop ? We think there 
can. For, whether we consider " the essence of ordination to con- 
sist in the setting apart a person by the imposition of hands ;" or 
" the voluntary choice and cali of the people," or both ; it will not 
follow that a third order of ministers is necessary to ordain. See 
Buck's Theological Dictionary. Art. Ordination. See also Dr. A. 
Clarke on Acts 13. en. 23 ver. 

1. " When pur Lord chose the twelve, that he might send them 
forth to preach, he is said to have ordained them: but the word not- 
m imports no more than to constitute, appoint, elect, and there is 
not the slightest intimation that he used any ceremonious consecra- 
tion." Isaac's ecclesiastical claims- p. 84. 

2. " There is not the slightest evidence in the whole of the New 
Testament that the apostles ordained either co~adjutors or succes- 
sors to themselves in the apostolic office." Ibid. pa. 86. 

3. " It was the common practice of the apostles to put their hands 
on persons recently converted. Peter and John laid their hands 
on the disciples at Samaria, and they received the Holy Ghost. 
Paul laid his hands on all the disciples atEphesus, and they receiv- 
ed the Holy Ghost." pa. 95. " But, though we read of the apostles 
laying hands on persons recently baptized, that they might receive 
the Holy Ghost ; and on the overseers of the poor, when elected to 
serve tables, we no where read of the laying on of their hands at the 
ordination of presbyters." Ibid. pa. 140. 

4 " The only persons who conferred holy orders, that we read 
of, were Paul and Barnabas, Timothy and Titus: the two former 
were apostles, and the two latter were evangelists. And as the 



61 

apostles have said nothing about the necessity of ordination, nor 
who are to perform it, nor what rites and ceremonies are to be used 
in it, we may justly infer, it is a matter of no great moment.' 5 
Ibid. pa. 145. 

5. «' TertulHan"' quoted by arch-bishop Potter, page .154," says, 
where no clergyman is present, laymen may baptize and celebrate 
the eucharist, the distinction between clergy and laity being of the 
church's appointing. " 

6 " Imposition of hands is not, certainly, essential to ordination; 
it is not ordination itself, but an expressive, significant act, by which 
ordination is indicated, a mode of doing that which may be other- 
wise done." English Methodist Magazine, vol. 48. pa. 184. 

7. " Ordination was never deemed necessary to a preacher, till 
within a few years past. And St- Ambrose says, that in the begin- 
ning of Christianity,for the augmentation and increase of the church, 
a genera! commission was granted unto all, both to preach the gos- 
pel and baptize, and to explain the scriptures in ecclesiastical as- 
semblies." Biogham's Antiquities, book 14. chap. 4. 

8. c< In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a bishop or 
priest, needethno consecration by the scriptures, for election or ap- 
pointing thereto is sufficient." Stillingfleet's Iren. pa. 392, 

9. Cs If we determine things by the importance of words, and 
things signified by them, the power of ordination was proper to the 
name presbyter, and not to the name bishop." Iren. pa. 286 A- 
gain il in the primitive church the presbyters all acted in common 
for the welfare of the church, and either did, or might ordain others 
to the same authority with themselves ; because the intnn- 
sical power of order is equally in tnem, and in those who were af- 
terwards appointed governors over presbyters." Iren. pa. 273. 

10. " A presbyter by his ordination had as ample an inherent 
right and power to discharge all clerical offices,as any bishop in the 
world had." And again, '* presbyters were of the very same specific 
order with them (bishops) having the same inherent right to per- 
form those ecclesiastical offices which tne bishops did," Lord 
King. pa. 58. 

11. "Bishops and presbyters are the same order, and conse- 
quently have the same right to ordain." Rev'd. John Wesley- 

As a third order is unnecessary, and in our opinion, contrary to 
primitive ecclesiastical usage ; it is a matter of surprise to us, that 
any attempt should ever have been made to foist it on us. To say 
that God would not have owned his word, or prospered his cause ? 
if we had not assumed the episcopal form of church government, 
would not only be to attach an importance to a particular modifica- 
tion of government, for which we can produce no scriptural war- 
rant, but it would be to limit the Holy One of Israel in his gracious 
operations. It would be to cast uncharitable and unjust reflections 
on other christian communities,who are opposed to episcopacy ; and 
would not only give proof that we entertain very unworthy thoughts 
of the Deity, but would be falsified by the existence and prosperi- 
ty of the Methodist connexion in Europe. As we have no evidence 



62 

» 

ihat it has served, or can serve any good purpose, we think, it alto- 
gether unnecessary. But, as we believe it has been, and ever will 
be productive of evil, we think it ought to be abolished. That it 
has been an apple of discord, engendering strife and contention, we 
think is quite clear. And that it will ultimately be the means of 
severing the connexion, is, in our judgment, beyond a doubt. Un- 
der this deep impression, we would venture to entreat the men who 
fill the office, to hearken to the advice of Mr. Wesley,and " make a 
full end of this." We would beg them to come down from that ele- 
vation to which they have been raised. It only serves to make them 
dizzy ; and is in fact, too high for them- to be safe. The circular of 
the last general conference may serve as proof of the unhappy ef- 
fects which their elevation has had upon their judgment; for their 
brethren, who petitioned to be represented in legislation, are pro- 
nounced to have " no rights," and seen at such a distance, are treat- 
ed as if they were an inferior order of beings. 



SECTION V. 

Having given a view of the origin of our episcopacy, and the means 
■which were used to give it currency with the people, we proceed 
now to shew that from its commencement, it has had a tendency to 
create dissensions and divisions among the bishops and travelling 
preachers, as well as among the societies. And in proof of this 
we submit the following facts. 

First. The manner in which the Doctor discharged the duties of 
the new office he was appointed to fill, and the title of bishop which 
he assumed, in connexion with Mr. Asbury in their joint address 
to General Washington, president of the American Congress, in- 
volved him in difficulties, not only with Mr. Wesley and the Bri- 
tish conference, as we have seen already, but with the American 
conference also. We have stated, that upon his return to Europe 
in 1785, he was impeached before the conference, and his name 
was left out of their minutes for one year. — Upon his return to the 
United States in, 1787, several complaints were preferred against 
him before the conference, held in Baltimore, the same year. " The 
Doctor acknowledged his faults — begged pardon — and gave the 
conference the following certificate." 

" I do solemnly engage, by this instrument, that I never will, by 
virtue of my office as superintendent of the Methodist church, du- 
ring my absence from the United States of America, exercise any 
government whatever, in the said Methodist church, during my ab- 
sence from the United States, And I do also engage, that 1 will 
exercise no privilege ia the said church when present in the United 
States, except that of ordaining according to the regulations and 
laws already existing, or hereafter to be made in the said church, 
and that of presiding, when present in conference, and lastly that 
of travelling at large. Given under mv hand, the seeond day of 
May, in the year 1787. THOMAS COKE. 

Witnesses, John Tunnil, John Hagebty, Nelson Reed." 
Lee's history of Methodism, pa. 185.; 



63 

Whatever view others may take of this subject, We consider it to 
have been the efeet of" episcopacy, and to have grown out of a strug- 
gle for the exercise of episcopal prerogative, as appears from the 
face of the certificate ; and it may be said, the unpleasant effects 
of it were never removed to the day of the Doctor's death. 

Second. Ih the year 1789,a little more than four years after the in- 
troduction of episcopacy/' a plan was laid for holding a council. The 
bishops said they had made it a matter of prayer ; and they believed 
it was the best plan they could think of." Lee, pa. 149. The object of 
having a council was to prevent the preachers from coming togeth- 
er in general conference, notwithstanding Mr. Wesley in his letter 
of Sept. 6th, 1786, had recommended that measure. And here by 
the way, in looking over the history of the council, which was pro- 
nounced bv preachers, who were in favor of a general conference^ 
to be an arbitrary and high handed measure, we are constrained to 
take notice that the powers claimed by the council, and those claim- 
ed by the general conference of 1824 are precisely the same : and 
that the arguments used on the former occasion to set forth those 
claims, and prevent a general conference of the preachers, do not 
differ in substance from those used by the general conference of 
1824> against representation. There was, however, some opposi- 
tion to the measure ; but the movers of the plan had the high grati- 
fication of finding their projects succeed. The council accordingly 
met. They formed their constitution. They declared their pow- 
ers, and plenary ones, it mus< be confessed, they were : for they de- 
clare " they shall have power to mature and resolve on all things 
relative to the spiritual and temporal interest of the church " Did 
those who profess to derive their authority in the church from St. 
Peter himself, ever claim more ? Is it possible to claim more? 
Yet, strongly intrenched as they were behind their consti* 
tution, the council had only an ephemeral existence. It met, it is 
true, to meet again : but after the second meeting, it broke up to 
meet again no more for ever. u Their proceedings," says Lee, in 
his history of Methodism, pa. 158," gave such dissatisfaction to our 
connexion in general, and to our travelling preachers in particular, 
that they were forced to abandon the plan, and there has never 
since been a meeting of the kind." And we may add, so of- 
fensive was the very name, that " the bishops requested that the 
name of the council might not be mentioned in the conference a- 
gain." Thus ended a measure that gave great dissatisfaction — ex- 
cited violent opposition from the travelling preachers and the laity 
—and threatened, for a while, the dissolution of the body and the 
overthrow of the episcopal government. 

Third. From the time the preachers had assumed the name of the 
Methodist episcopal church, it had been customary for Mr. Asbury 
to appoint each one to his respective station or circuit, and no man 
had any right to question the propriety of the exercise of this pow- 
er, or oppose the execution of this part of our discipline. This 
prerogative, the reader will recoUec*, was solemnly renounced by 
Dr.€oke in the certificate which he gave the conference : nor was 



64 

he ever afterwards allowed to resume it. But with Mr. Asbury 
the exercise of this power was never interrupted. He held thi* r*in 
of government firmly in his own hand, sensible, no doubt, tha* as 
long as he had it in his sole power to give places to preachers, and 
preachers to whatever places he chose, he would never want men 
or means to carry into execution whatever measures he wished. To 
him, it belonged to send a preacher where he pleased ; and in a re- 
stricted sense, it was immaterial tohira whether the preacher chose 
to go or not — whether he considered it convenient to go or not — or 
whether the place to which he was appointed to go, would agree 
with his health and constitution or not. This»tremendous power 
over the comfort — the supplies — the health — nay the life and death 
of the preacher, began to be considered by the travelling preachers 
themselves, as too mighty to be exercised by any one man. If the 
objections entertained by the preacher against his appointment were 
ever so reasonable and just, it was altogether optional with the bi- 
shop, whether he would hear them or not. If he heard them, well : 
but if he did not choose to alter the appointment, the preacher had 
no alternative, but to go to his circuit or go home. To prevent the 
abuse of this tremendous power, and to give the preacher security 
against the exercise of it, Mr. James O'Kelly, a travelling preacher 
from Virginia, offered, in the general conference of 1792, the fol- 
lowing resolution. <c Resolved, after the bishop appoints the preach- 
ers at conference to their several circuits, if any one think himself 
injured by the appointment, he shall have liberty to appeal to the 
conference and state his objections : and if the conference approve 
his objections, the bishop shall appoint him to another circuit." 

It is far from our intention, to enter into an examination of the 
merits of this resolution, or to shew the necessity or propriety of 
such a check on the bishop's power. Instead therefore, of offeting 
our own speculations^ we shall present the opinion of Dr. Coke re-* 
specting the subject of this resolution, and then give the words of 
the historian who was present and bore a part in the transactions of 
that day. 

Dr. Coke says in a printed circular, dated Wilmington, Dela* 
ware, May 4th, 1791. " Five things we have in view, I. The abo- 
lition of the arbitrary aristocracy. 9. The investing of the nomi- 
nation of the presiding elders in the conferences of the districts. 
Q-. The limitation of the districts to be invested in the general con- 
ference. 4. An appeal allowed each preacher on the reading of the 
stations. And 5. A general conference of at least two thirds of the 
preachers as a check upon every thing. 

But a good superintendent will not do th? wrong you fear. I 
answer a good superintendent is but a man, and man is fond of pow- 
er. But a good superintendent may become a tyrant, or be sue* 
ceeded by one. O stand up for liberty, be friends of mankind in 
all things." 

Mr. Lee says " this motion brought on a long debate ; the argu- 
ments for and against the proposal were weighty, and handled in a 
masterly manner. TJiere never had been a subject before us which 



65 

so fully called forth all the strength of the preachers. 33 page Ifti 
Id this memorable affair, Mr. M'Kendree, now our senior bishop, 
took a distinguished part : and it was on account of the rejection 
of this resolution that he withdrew from the connexion.* Through 
the course of this warm and protracted debate, he is represented to 
have been a strenuous advocate for the appeal $ and so hostile was 
he to the exercise of this power, bv Mr. Asbury, without a check, 
that rather than submit to what he called tyranny,! he with Mr. 
O'Kelly and several other preachers chose to leave the church. For 
this step, we know, Mr. M'Kendree has been censured. But on 
what ground ? Surely it could not be considered a reflection upon 
his wisdom or discernment, to have perceived the evils which were 
likely to grow out of such unlimited power over the destinies of 
the preachers. Nor could he have been blamed for sympathising 
with the oppressed, or taking part with the ''injured." Is his love 
for the itinerant cause liable to be questioned, when in the very 
body of the resolution for the appeal, the power to over- rule the ob- 
jections of the preacher, is vested in a conference of itinerant min- 
isters ? If any blame will attach to him on the page of history ,$ 
we presume it will not be attributed to him for acting such a mag- 
nanimous part, and as a free citizen of the United States of Ameri- 
ca refusing to submit to such ' k arbitrary" and i( tyrannical" rule i 
but because he receded from the lofty ground he then took, and af- 
terwards allowed himself to receive and exercise that very power 
which he had so strongly condemned in Mr. Asbury. This ap- 
peal was the origin and cause of a secession from the Methodist 
episcopal church, of such great extent, that in less than five years, 
the minutes of conference exhibit a decrease of 20,000 members, 
which was about one third of the whole number in the connexion at 
that time. 

4. There have been several other secessions since that penod, 
in different parts of the United States. Some in Virginia — in Ken- 

* " Sunday 25. Came to Manchester, W. M'Kendree and R. H sent 

me their resignation in writing-." Asbury's Journal, vol. 2, pa. 148. 

f A correspondent writes thus : " The Rev'd E. C. of the Philadelphia 
conference, has given, in the third volume of the Wesleyan Repository, pa. 
303, some of the words which Mr. M'K. used in the debate. ft It is an in- 
sult to my understanding- ; and such an arbitrary stretch of poiuer^o tyranni- 
cal for J despotic, that I cannot, for J will not submit to it-" 
i" JEneas Sylvius Piccolomoni, who succeeded to the pontificate that same 
year, under the title of Pius II. rendered his name much more illustrious 
not only by his extensive genius and the important transactions that were, 
carried on during his administration, but also by the various and useful pro* 
ductions with which he enriched the republic of letters. The lustre of his 
name was, indeed, tarnished by a scandalous proof of his inconstancy, or 
rather of his bad faith;for after having vigourously defended,against the pon- 
tiffs, the dignity and prerogatives of general councils, and maintained with 
peculiar boldness the cause of the council of Basil against Eugenius IV he 
ignore iniously renounced these generous principles upon bis accession to 
the pontificate, and acted in direct opposition to them during the whole 
course of his administration." Wesley's Church History, vol. IU. pa. 29, 
5 



66 

tucky—in Ohio — in Pennsylvania — in New York—and in New 
England. But, last year, ministers and representatives from these 
several parties held a convention in the city of New York— united 
themselves under the name of the Methodist Society — and publish- 
ed a declaration of independence, their articles of religion, and the 
constitution of their church. A'l these, when taken collectively, go 
far to prove, that episcopacy, to say the least, has not the power to 
presprve the unity of the body in the bonds of peace. And we 
know it to be a fact, that several of these secessions had their ori- 
gin in objections to the episcopal form of church government. 

5. From the time that presiding elders were created, we believe, 
the order has not been very popular with some of the preachers; 
and of late years, the dislike has become so strong, and has spread 
so extensively throughout the societies, that now the abolition of 
the office of presiding elder is pretty generally desired. Against 
the power of the b'shops to appoint them, many of the travelling 
preachers have been long clamorous. For twenty years, they have 
not failed to bring forward resolutions, in each general conference, 
to deprive the bishops of the right to appoint them, and to make 
them elective by the annual conferences. At the general confer- 
ence of 18-20. the matter was again introduced, and submitted to 
the consideration of a committee consisting of six, three of whom 
were chosen from the party in favor of the change, and three from 
the party opposed to it. This committee came to a compromise, 
and unanimously reported in favor of the bishops nominating three 
for every vacancy, out of which number the annua) conference 
should elect one ; and this measure had the hearty approbation of 
bishops George and Roberts. But, although the conference adopt- 
ed the report by a very large majority, yet Mr. Soule, the bishop 
elect, and Mr. M'Kendree the senior bishop, protested against the 
proceedings of the general conference ; and refused to abide by 
their decisions, the latter declared his intention of appealing to the 
annual conferences respecting the unconstitutionality of the mea- 
sure. And thus, in addition to all the other divisions which we 
have already mentioned, we have one among the bishops them- 
selves, and the members of the general conference ; some of the 
preachers arraying themselves on the side of Mr. M'Kendree and 
Mr.Soule in favor of the bishop's right to appoint presiding elders*** 
and others taking sides with Mr. George and Mr. Roberts against 
it. These resolutions, making the presiding elders elective, were 
suspended until the general conference of 1824, and they have re- 
mained in that state ever since. What Methodist does not know 
these things ? And who is there that requires to be told that the 
bishops themselves, notwithstanding; their pretensions to unanim- 
ity, are divided even now, two against three, and three against 
two ? Such is the representation that has constantly been made to 
us, and such, we believe, to be a true representation. 

Among the many proofs which might be adduced to establish 
this fact, we select and offer an official document, which bears the 
signatures of two of the bishops ; and this surely will be consider- 



67 

ed the best evidence that the case will admit. In the ie Christian 
Advocate," a religious newspaper printed at our book room in New 
York, for the Methodist episcopal church, we have the copy of a 
" letter from the Rev'd. Bishops George and Hedding to the presi- 
sident and members of the British conference, late in connexion 
with the Rev'd John Wesley," from which we make the following 
extract. 

" Dear Fathers and Brethren — From a concurrence of cir- 
cumstances, which it is not necessary to explain, arising principal- 
ly, however, from the unexpected failure of a full meeting of the 
episcopal board, it has been found inconvenient to elect and send a 
delegate to your conference the present year. 

ENOCH GEORGE, 
ELIJAH HEDDIMG." 
New-Fork, May 17th t 1826. 

With regard to this letter we say (1.) That it was published at 
the Methodist book rooms in England and in America, and sent to 
the four quarters of the globe ; consequently it can be no secret, 
nor can it be deemed a crime for us to give the above extract a place 
in this essay. (2.) It appears to have been written and sent to the 
British conference, by two out of the five bishops of our church. 
(3.) As it bears the signatures of only two of the four who were 
present at the * c episcopal board," it may be justly inferred that it 
was written and sent without the approbation of the other two ; 
which, by the way, was not, in our opinion, very respectful to Mr. 
M'Kendree, and his episcopal colleague, Mr. Soule. But we shall 
leave the bishops to settle this matter among themselves. (4.) It 
may be asked why did not Mr. M'Kendree and Mr. Soule, concur 
in the measure adopted by Mr. George and Mr. Hedding ? Every 
one will conclude there must have been some very weighty reasons 
which prevented them from co-operating with their brethren of the 
episcopacy, when it shall have been known that a resolution of the 
last general conference directed the sending of a delegate ; and the 
want of this co-operation is proof of our statement. (5.) This let. 
ter was written as an apology for not sending a delegate to the Bri- 
tish conference lt the present year." (6.) And this failure, the 
writers tell us, " arose from a concurrence of circumstances which 
it is not necessary to explain." And what do you think, reader, 
was this ''concurrence of circumstances" respecting which you are 
left in the dark ? We learn from good authority in the travelling 

connexion, that two of the board were forsending the Rev. of 

South Carolina, a delegate to represent the American connexion in 
the British conference, and that the other two opposed it. Being 
equally divided in the board, and as each side was firm to its pur- 
pose and neither side would yield, there could be no election, and 
so the matter ended. 

From the foregoing brief sketch of the origin of our episcopacy 
and the history of our church, we are led to the following conclu- 
sions : 



68 

4 1. We are obliged to declare, from a deep conviction of historic 
truth, that there exists not in the range of our research, any paper., 
letter or document to prove, that Mr. Wesley ever intended to 
constitute Dr. Coke or Mr. Asbury a bishop : or that he ever" re- 
commended" or gave any fi counsel," that the societies should " a* 
doot the episcopal mode of church government in preference to any 
other." If there be such a paper, letter or document, we have nev- 
er seen it : and if it exists, we conceive it is incumbent on the bi- 
shops to inform the church of its existence ; and unless it be pro- 
duced, we shall be obliged, however humiliating to us as belonging 
to the church, to believe, that the present form of government was 
surreptitiously introduced, and was imposed upon the societies un= 
der trie sanction of Mr Wesley's name. 

But although, as we have said, we have no knowledge of the ex- 
istence of any such document, nor of any such " counsel or recom- 
mendation" being given, we do know that Mr. Wesley gave some 
6t counsel" that was never taken, and " recommended" certain mea- 
sures which were positively rejected. Had his advice been taken, 
the term " bishop" would have been put away from amongst us.— 
Let th^ present bishops, then, conform to his recommendation. Let 
them give us evidence that they respect his counsel, by making rt a 
full end to this thing." But unless they do it, in the name of good- 
ness and truth, let them make no more reference to Mr. Wesley's 
" recommendation" or " counsel ; " and until it is done let us hear 
no more about Wesley an Methodism. 

% It may now be reasonably expected, that every member of the 
church will look for the establishment of the assertion, by clear and 
indubitable evidence, that Mr. Wesley " recommended the episco- 
pal mode of church government" to the American Methodists. As 
for ourselves, though we are obliged to demur respecting this fact, 
yet we shall be giad. for the sake of all who have been concerned in 
making this statement, to find that the truth of it can be establish- 
ed. Until this is done, we shall take the liberty of proposing a 
question or two, to the conscience of every ministerand member of 
our church, but particularly to the members of the next general 
conference. (I.) On the supposition, that there is no document 
to prove (and nothing short of a document will satisfy us) that Mr. 
Wesley explicitly " recommended" our present form of church go- 
vernment, does it accord with truth to persist in publishing a 
statement which cannot be supported by evidence P How will tra- 
velling preachers answer either to God or man for their pertinacity 
upon this subject ? Down to the present time we can readily find 
an excuse for them. They may not have adverted to this, subject 
at all ; or if they thought upon it, they may have dismissed it as a 
matter which they did not understand. Or they may have suppos- 
ed, iike ourselves,before we commenced this examination, that " Mr* 
Wesley did recommend the episcopal mode of church government," 
and that there were, somewhere or other, although we did not 
know where, documents in existence to prove this fact. But now* 
since the case is brought fullj under their consideration, and fairly 



. 69 

submitted to them for proof, the members of the general confer- 
ence will be inexcusable, if they continue to reiterate these state- 
ments without the necessary evidence. If they cannot prove what 
we require, let them retract what they have said, and build their 
episcopal edifice upon another foundation. (2.) To all, whether 
preachers or members, we would say, does it accord with Justice 
lo be tributary to the support of any system which is built upon 
mere assertion, not sustained by any evidence whatever. A system 
which goes to deprive Christ's freemen and God's ministers of their 
rights, to gratify the ambition or uphold the authority of a few* 
Even Mr. Wesley's recommendation, feeble foundation as it would 
have been for such a system, cannot be exhibited. This we know 
is giving the subject a moral bearing and places it in a very serious 
light in the estimation of every good man. With such, the matter 
is resolvable into some such question as this. Shall I directly or 
indirectly, secretly or openly, defend another man in retaining what 
I am not sure he obtained by just and proper means ? Shall I sup* 
port him in his claims which go to deprive his neighbour of Ms rights, 
especially when the claims which have been set up cannot be es- 
tablished by the necessary vouchers ? This is plain talk, and we 
design to be plain. We wish to bring the matter home to the bo- 
som and conscience of every man in the church. We consider our= 
selves despoiled of our rights. We have never surrendered, bar- 
tered, sold, transferred, or given away what our travelling brethren 
claim ; and we conceive they have no more right to take what they 
claim and legislate for us without our consent, than A. would have 
to take from B. a part of his farm, enclose it under a fence, and then 
say it was recommended to him to do so by C. or plead a '* divine 
right" to his possession. 

3. The history of the Methodist episcopal church presents a me- 
lancholy picture of strife and division ; one upon which we could 
dilate ; but we forbear. The truth is, from its organization down 
to the present time, it has been one continued scene of secret heart 
burning or open contention. It never had perfect peace, it 
never will have perfect peace under the present form of govermeut. 
Let us not be censured, then, for exhibiting what we believe to be a 
plain and honest statement of facts ; but let our censure be turned 
against the cause and let us all unite to put it away from us forev-? 
er. We confess it affords our own mind no small degree of conso- 
lation, under the pain produced by the contemplation of this mor- 
tifying picture, to think, and the remark is particularly worthy of 
the attention of local ministers, because they have been represent- 
ed by our travelling brethren as a set of restless, dissatisfied men ; 
that in all the disputes and divisions, by which the church has here- 
tofore been agitated and torn, the great body of local preachers have 
had no share. They suomitted to the present order of things al- 
though they were degraded and proscribed. Whilst the many and 
warm disputes, which have taken place in the church, originated 
with, and were confined to the travelling ministers, and were en- 
tirely unconnected with the rights and privileges of either the lai-* 
ty or the local ministry. 



70 

4. The various dissensions which have arisen in the church among 
the travelling ministers, for the forty years during which we have 
been organised, might be sufficient, we would suppose, to convince 
any candid man, that the principles of our eccclesiastical polity are 
wrong. Instead of these dissensions becoming fewer or weaker, it 
is evident, that with the lapse of time, they are assuming a bolder 
character, and becoming more general in their extension and ef- 
fects. The connexion is in fact now divided into two parties : and 
it would seem, that all that is wanting is for some one conference, 
underan influential and intrepid leader, to declare themselves com- 
petent to manage their own business in their own way, and a sep- 
aration would be formally made, which would not only rive the con- 
nexion in two, but would reduce the bishops to the level of their 
brethren. To prevent a split, let our leading men take speedy and 
efficient measures to have the rights of all parties secured, and then 
we may reasonably hope that those terrible commotions, by which 
the church has been torn, will cease for ever. 



CONCLUSION. 

In the preceding pages, we have spread before our readers, such 
documents as were found to be connected with the origin of our 
episcopacy. We are sorry that this expose will not reflect much 
credit on those who were instrumental in saddling it upon us. We 
are persuaded that the impartial, intelligent and pious of other de- 
nominations will pronounce our episcopacy to be illegitimate ; and 
that the means, which were used to introduce it into the church, 
were neither fair nor honourable. Should this turn out to be the 
case, who will be ambitious of the title of a Methodist bishop ? Any 
man, who, under such circumstances, would allow himself to be 
called by that name, must, in our opinion, be strongly infected with 
an episcopal mania. Whether such will be found or not, we are 
well convinced, and perhaps othe/s also may be convinced, by the 
foregoing documents, that the title and office ought to be repudia- 
ted. Should this opinion prevail, we would take the liberty of pro- 
posing some changes which ought to take place after the next gen- 
eral conference. In doing this, we wish it to be distinctly under- 
stood, that we are not authorised to speak for our brethren who are 
in favour of representation. The changes w r e propose, and the plan 
we offer, are entirely our own. 

First. Let the name of bishop, and the episcopal office as it now 
exists among us, be put away for ever. In doing this, we shall 
comply with Mr. Wesley's advice to Mr. Asbury. tC For my sake, 
for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full eml to this." We shall 
then be more worthy the name of Wesleyan Methodists. 

Second. Abolish the office of presiding elders. 

Third. Let each annual conference be clothed with legislative 
powers, under the restriction of a legitimate constitution. For it is 
perfectly idle to think, that the North should make laws for the 



71 

South, or the South for the North. The East for the West, or the 
West for the East. In proof of this position we may adduce the 
conduct of the general conference, which, after all the severe re- 
flections which had been cast upon Southern preachers, by preach- 
ers from the North, found it necessary to allow each annual confer- 
ence to legislate for its members on the subject of slavery. Why 
not extend this privilege to the annual conferences in other matters 
also r We think it must be obvious, that the peculiar usages in 
the different sections of the work, and the local interests of the 
members of the church require such a change. Nor is there any 
advantage in confining legislation to the general conference, which 
can serve as an equivalent for the loss the circuits and stations 
sustain, and the great expense which is incurred by so many preach- 
ers attending the general conference. But these inconveniences 
would be obviated if the annual conferences were allowed to make 
their own laws. Besides, representatives could more easily attend 
their respective annua! conferences, than they can go from the ex- 
treme parts of the work over such distances as lay between them 
and the general conference. 

Fourth. Let each annual conference be composed of itinerant 
ministers who have travelled a given number of years; together with 
representatives from the local ministry and the laity. And let the 
preachers of each annual conference be stationed by their own su- 
perintendent, or by the superintendent and a committee of travel- 
ling preachers elected annually, from among themselves for that 
purpose. 

Fifth. Let each annual conference elect its own superintendent, 
whose period of service should not continue longer than four years. 
But although this period may be fixed higher or lower, on no ac- 
count should a superintendent be elected for life. If the office of 
a superintendent be deemed an honorable one, it should be open to 
all the qualified and worthy. If it be a laborious and irksome one, 
it should not be imposed upon a single individual as long as he lives. 
Being elected periodically he can travel at large through the bounds 
of his conference, and by that means render unnecessary the office of 
presiding elders. And were the superintendent elected by the travel- 
ling ministers and representatives of local ministers and laymen in 
conference assembled, his election would assimilate to the election 
of the superintendents or bishops in the primitive church. 

Sixth. Let the general conference be composed of the superin- 
tendents, and a given number of representatives from the annual 
conferences. Let their attention be confined to doctrines, altera- 
tions, or amendments of the constitution, general missions, and such 
other business as cannot well be confided to any one annual con- 
ference. The qualifications of its members, and its powers and ju- 
risdiction to be defined and settled by the constitution. 

Seventh. Let the local ministers and the laity be represented in 
the legislative department of the church, whether legislation be as- 
signed to the general, or annual conferences. On the other points 
which we have mentioned above, we place,comparatively, no stress. 
We therefore hope no attempt will be made to withhold represen- 



72 

tation from the laity, on account of any objections which may be 
made against the specified items of change. We are not tenacious 
of them. We are willing, if it should be thought best, to relinquish 
any, or all of them. But, representation from the local ministry 
and laity, by the help of God, we will never relinquish This,with us, 
is a sine qua non. In our opinion it is absolutely and indispensa- 
bly necessary to the purity and unity of the church. It is the ina- 
lienable right of every man. There is no principle in the New Tes- 
tament which forbids it. It has been declared sacred by the usage 
of the primitive church; as has been abu ndantiy proved in this work. 
That it has been recognised by the early Christians, will be denied 
by no one who has made himself acquainted with the subject. And 
we must add,that we find daily evidence of the necessity of the intro- 
duction of this important principle, for the restoration of the peace 
of the church, and the safety of its members. If we had no other 
instance to offer, the late Baltimore annual conference has furnish- 
ed sufficient proof of the propriety of the measure ; for they have 
suspended the Rev'd. Dennis B. Dorsey, a presbyter in the church 
and a member of their own body, whose moral and ministerial char- 
acter was unimpeachable. This punishment was indicted for no 
other reason but because he would not promise, not to have any 
agency in supporting or circulating the " Mutual Rights," a work 
which was originated expressly to advocate the rights of local min- 
isters and laymen to representation, although the said Rev'd. D. B. 
Dorsey declared he could not in his judgment and conscience,make 
such a promise. 



No. I. 



TO THE REV'd. WILLIAM M £ KENDREE, SENIOR BISHOP OF THE 
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 

Baltimore, July 1st, 1826. 

Rev'd. Sir : — It is known to you, I presume, that of those who 
have advocated a representation of the laity and local ministry in 
the general conference, I am one ; and that I have contributed my 
feeble assistance to support and spread the Mutual Rights, in which 
the subject of representation has been so freely discussed. I do- 
ing this, I assure you, I have acted from a sense of duty, and there- 
fore, if in an error, am rather to be pitied than blamed. Hitherto, 
however, I have not been convinced that I am in error ; nor have I 
seen any argument offered by our rulers to justify themselves in 
denying representation to the other branches of the church, except, 
only, those founded on prescription, as offered by the general con- 
ference of 1824 in their circular on the subject. From the time 
that this doctrine was published in that circular, I have been in- 
duced to examine, with a closer attention, u the institutions of the 
church as we received them from our fathers," and must say, I see 
the subject in a light very different from that in which it appeared 
to me before that time. I am about to commit to the press an outline 
exhibiting the result of this examination : but before I do so, I think 
it is a duty I owe to you and your colleagues in the episcopacy, to 
apprise you of my intention ; inasmuch as my conclusions may 
have an important bearing on the office which you hold in the 
church. 

I beg you, my dear sir, to be assured, that nothing disrespectful 
is intended, either in the matter or manner of this communication. 
My sole object is to make this honest statement, and to obtain from 
fou the desired information, on several points, if you can possibly 
give it. Because if I have been led into an error by the documents 
which I have in my possession, it is important, that that error should 
be counteracted, by other equally authentic documents, to which I 
have had no access. The points upon which I beg information are 
the following. 
6 



1. I desire to be informed whether you have ever seen the ori- 
ginal letter written by Mr. Wesley " to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and 
our brethren in North America," dated Bristol, Sept. 10th 1784. 
If you have seen it, whether the whole of it has been printed ? And 
if the whole of it was not printed, whether a copy of it can now be 
procured ? 

I make this inquiry because I have a document in my possession 
in which it is asserted, that that letter was mutilated, and that on- 
ly a part of it was given to the public. 

2. Whether you nave ever seen any document or letter written by 
Mr. Wesley in which he explicitly " recommended" to the Me- 
thodist societies in xAmerica the adoption of " the episcopal mode 
of church government," according to the statements made in the 
minutes of conference for 1785, and the book of discipline. If so, 
can a copy of it be obtained ? 

3. Whether there is any paper to be found in which Mr. Wes- 
ley gave ** counsel" to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury or any other person 
or persons to ordain a third order of ministers in our church, mean- 
ing by that phrase, an order of bishops distinct from, and superior 
to an order of presbyters ? If so, can that paper be produced ? 

4. Are you able to inform me in what year Mr. Wesley's name 
was left out of the minutes ? At what conference was the vote ta- 
ken ? By whom it was done r And for what reasons ? 

In asking information upon the above points, permit me to pro- 
pose them to your consideration, as being connected with the of- 
fice you fill, and with the address to the members of the church 
which bears your signature in the Book of Discipline. And that 
no blame may attach to me hereafter on account of reservation, I 
deem it proper frankly and fully to state the results to which my 
investigation has conducted me. I candidly say, then, that I can- 
not believe from the testimony of any or all the documents which I 
have been able to peruse, that Mr. Wesley ever recommended the 
episcopal mode of church government to the American Methodists. 
I cannot believe he ever gave them any " counsel" to create a third 
order of ministers as distinct from, and superior to the order of 
presbyters. But I am forced to believe, that the present form of 
government was surreptitiously introduced ; and that it was im- 
posed upon the societies, under the sanction of Mr. Wesley's name. 

I shall suspend the publishing of my piece, to allow you a reason- 
able time to reply. You will have the goodness to favor me with 
an answer before the expiration of the next month. 

I remain, Rev'd. Sir, your brother and fellow labourer in the 
Lord, ALEXANDER M'CAINE. 

Nc B. I send a copy of this letter to each of your colleagues, 

A. M<C, 



75 
No, II. 

Baltimore, Sept. 25th, 1 826. 
Rev'd. Sir: — The general conference of 1824, having, in their 
circular, denied the right of local ministers and lay members, to be 
represented in that body ; and having, moreover, intimated their 
determination to preserve* to the travelling preachers for ever, the 
the exclusive " authority to make rules and regulations for the 
church," it is, in my opinion a matter of great importance, in view 
of the discussion growing out of this subject to ascertain how the 
travelling preachers became possessed of this " authority." This 
inquiry carries me back to the origin of our church government, an 
account of which is published in the minutes of conference for If 85, 
and in the Book of Discipline, chap. \. sec. 1. In this account, I 
find it asserted, that the conference <e following the counsel of Mr. 
John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal mode of church go- 
vernment, thought it best to become an episcopal church." This 
statement 1 have compared with the document on which it is pro- 
fessedly founded, (see minutes of conference for 1785) and cannot 
perceive in it any li counsel" or rt recommendation" to adopt the 
episcopal mode of church government in (i preference to any other.'* 
And, as I have not been able to perceive either in the document a- 
bove alluded to, or in any part of Mr. Wesley's writings, any re- 
commendation to adopt the aforesaid form of government, it has oc- 
curred to me, that as you are among the oldest preachers now liv- 
ing, and as you are supposed to have a knowledge of our church af- 
fairs at that early day, you may be able to give some information 
upon this subject. Permit me, then, to ask you, if you have ever 
seen any document or letter, in which Mr. Wesley explicitly <( re- 
commended," to the Methodist societies in these United States, 
the episcopal form of church government ? If you have seen such 
a document can a copy of it be procured. 

2. Have you ever read Mr. Wesley's original manuscript letter 
dated Sept 10, 1784, an extract of which is given as the sole author- 
ity for the adoption of our present form of church government? 

3. Have you ever seen any letter or paper in which Mr. Wesley 
gave any " counsel" or advice to Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury or any other 
person to ordain a third order of ministers in our church, mean- 
ing, by that phrase, an order of bishops distinct from and superior 
to an order of presbyters ? If so, can you tell if that paper can be 
produced ? 

4. Are you able to inform me in what year Mr. Wesley's name 
was left out of the minutes? At what conference was the vote 
taken ? By whom was it done ? And for what reasons ? 

That you may have a full understanding of the importance which 
I attach to this investigation, it may be proper to state to you, that 
I have prepared an essay for the press, which, in my opinion will 
have some bearing upon the episcopal office in our church. And as 
my sole object is to obtain information, I would be extremelv 



76 

thankful to you, if you could give me such information as would 
serve to correct the conclusions, (if they be erroneous) to which I 
have been conducted by the perusal of those documents to which I 
have had access. And, before I close, it may not be amiss to re- 
mark, that if the liberty I have taken, in making these inquiries, be 
considered by you an improper one, I hope you will ascribe it to a 
good motive ; for it is truly my wish to obtain all possible informa- 
tion, before I give my essay to the public. 

With sentiments of respect, I remain yours, in the gospel, 

ALEXANDER M'CAINE. 

The above letter was addressed to the following brethren, who were members of the confereneem 
1784. The Rev'd. Freeborn Garrettson, Rev'd. Lemuel Green, ^ev'd. Thomas Ware, Rev'd. - 
Nelson Reed, Rev'd. William Watters,and Rev'd. Edward Dramgoole. 



No, III. 

Jan. 15th. 1827. 
My hind and respected friend, 

In perusing that very valuable and useful publication, " the Mu= 
tual Rights," for this month, I observe there is reference to a fu- 
neral sermon preached by Dr. Coke in Baltimore, on a Sunday 
evening, on the death of Rev'd. John Wesley. The text was rt My 
father, my father, the chariots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof." 
I was present and heard that discourse ; and I could confirm all that 
your correspondent " Dissenter" has stated. And farther, I can say 
Dr. Coke called it an almost diabolical act, namely, the expunging 
of Mr. Wesley's name from the American minutes. He said that 
no history furnished any parallel to it — that a body of Christian 
ministers should treat an aged and faithful minister, as Mr. Wes- 
ley undoubtedly was, with such disrespect, &c. &c. 

I recollect observing at the time, that my friend Dr. Coke was 
planting thorns for himself; and so it was, for he was left to get 
into the mail coach next morning by himself: and meeting Mr. As- 
bury somewhere near Philadelphia, I was told they were very cool 
and shy towards each other. You know that Dr. Coke was one of 
Mr. Wesley's executors, and that he was straining every nerve to 
get to England as quick as possible. 

When Dr. Coke got to London, he printed the sermon referred 
to above. It was the same text ; but he omitted all the reflections 
he made in Baltimore respecting leaving Mr. Wesley's name off 
the American minutes. 

I would also observe to you, that Mr. Vasey and Dr. Coke had 
very sharp words at the conference in If 84. This was talked of 
by the preachers : but on what they disputed, I am not at all able 
to say. I am, &c. 

Another says " Dr. Coke preached a funeral sermon in Baltimore on the 
Idle death of Mr. Wesley ; in which he inveighed against those preachers 
who excommunicated Mr. Wesley from the American connexion in the year 
1787. Respecting this act, the Doctor says, " I doubt much, whether the 
cruel usage he received in Baltimore,in 1787, when he was excommunicat- 
ed (wonderful and most unparalled step !) did not hasten his death. In- 
deed I little doubt it. For, from the time he was informed of it, he began 
to hang down his head, and to think he had lived long enough." 



S ccjcc dccccc .cc 
fxx^cqc^oc^ 



CjCC CJ^G C 



■. <3C.- 



serene 

ccc C3iC 



;x<c« 

"ccc 
£S c 
=Cc c 

:cc 



ccco^ 

■crosce; c 

csccr _<3 
ccoc <j 






C^ C3|< 



<X<C^ 



C <&CL 

c m& 

: CCC 
•<clcc 

etc 

**3lcc 

~cc c 
<2CC 
<c3cc 

crcc 



<CCd 

CK^ 
ctc< 



€L_cc 

CZPC 
C1CC 
Gc c 

£8£ 



core 
c<xcc 

CtCC 

cmc: 

cccc: 

ccc 
ccc: 

CCC 

ccc 
cged 

cc 



cc ■" 

Ccr 
cc<C 



<TCc< 






cere 

cc c 

tcmc 
cc 

CC 

a c 

CC 

c c 



«CZC< 
€CcC<c 



<<^oc C 
c£«®c dec 

^cc£- 
r3:cs<^/<Sc<3« 

c?c&c^<^ 

<- c^<H « 
CcCC^ dg ^^ 



:<ec o ^ 

<cc ^ c ^ 
:cc ^s c « 

CC C^c CC 

Tcc:«r 



CC CCC 



^ Jgfe d < 

— <^?<-< c -< 
^ cccd. crc 
^<2fC3 <H <4 

c^<c : g; 

«EC« C < 

ccc^o c 5 
cc d_c c<< 

CcCd^C C* 

cccd3 cc 
ccc^ccc 

^ cc 



<3cd 

Ccc 



§ ccc 
cccc 
CCC 

cc CC 

cf c 



CC af 



^^S^ 



: dC dCC 



CC c 

C CCC 

cc 
c 



CCC 

ccc 

ccc 

Cc^ 



d Ccd cc_<^_ ^> ^ 



cx.c a 
^crcc 

CC € 



£^ 



iced 

c <r" rf"~". 



c C 
CC 

c c 

cc 

CC - 

c c 
c: c 
etc 
cc 



( c 
CCCC 

•ccc 
ccc 

cc 
cc 



" CC1 

etc * 
cc * 

cc 

■CC. 

cc: 

CC 

cc 
cc 

cc. 

cr-c 
c c 



ICC< 
TCCC 

iccc 

CCc:< 
CZCC'C 

C1CCCC 

: csmc 
<3^ c 
effl <c: . 

<2^c 

cCECC 

" <:<BcC 

r c<ec<c 
:" cm 
'— <c: 

__ c.<r c 

r" cC c 



" lC 


'^CZ 


>cc 


c ^ 


czc 


<cc 


3^ 


" cc 


cC €C 

c <: 


H«C: 


"^s: 


CC 


^^ 


"XC 


C 4C- 


"TC 


: cC 


^^ 


C ' 


'. *a 


^ccc 


CcL < 


«tz 


c< 


€^J 


@f^ 


( C 


<z 


"C i 


ti^ 


CXI 


cc 




2 < 


c^~~~ 


CC 


CC 


4(^ 


~( i 


<czz 


c c 


cc 


- <c 


n^ 


02 


C C 


cc 


• c 


3 


CI 


CC 1 


cc 


< 


(^ ' 


CI 


c c 


CC 


A 


& 


CI 


cc 


cc 


4 


cc 


c 


cc 


cc 


« 


c 


CC 


cc 


cc 




<: 


CI 


c c 


cc 




d 


c 


c . c 


CCC 




c 


c 


c c 


CC 




c 


CI 


CL< 


ccc 




c 


CI 


c ^ 


^lc 


~~ 


c 


c 


c_ * 



^cc< 
-czccc 
<rcc< 



J3X 
^CCCCC 
^CCd 

dccc 
CICCC 

crccc: 

CCC 
c CTCC_ 
c CSCC 
<ACC 
<TC<C 
CCcjC 
r CSC 
ccc 



<L_<^C:C 


«Lj££^ 


"CCC 


; : <^' 


< <T :: <^: 


<>€ZS&£~ 


j C<». 


•~'<3X. 


<r. <^: <s<cc 


- ac~i# 


r <L~<i<tc: 


ae3l 


c cz^ktc? 


■'<3«c 


C <3&*r 


<CT^<< 


C 4CT~~<$X:C < 


jg^SS 


c -<Z^< ] 


cnr<^< 


-*r- MT lr„(Cr" 4 


tf^ " : ijfi c 



GC^ 



<m& 



crccc 



""cl^c:. 



cx^<s^ 



<*-- <■ .c<« 



«eti^*-m ;c 



<r." <-. 






<&s 



■Jg?-. <— <r < 
tec?: «c cr c c„ 



CCXc 



<0 



cc 



2 <C>c < 

_ <fr<r 



CSC, - 
C3<C«C'.. « 









1_ oCc-'-CiC 
: : c,, cc ■ <£ 
<r ^occ<L: 

:c c< < <& < 

<a <:■<: *L '<■■■ 



cccc 



<:c cc 



cicr 






Cc5 C 



